Double Standard reloaded
Who is interested in debating and who is not?
Who is interested in developing the article and
who is interested in freezin it to death, including using threats and veiled censorship in the form of selective double standard applying of internal rules?

After all, it never too much to remind that:
an editor besides not been unwilling or unable to counter argue, over a year and a half, he also have done baseless statements about editions done by me in a certain rude tone,
During all this time, I have responded to him in the same mode, but especifically to these assertions,
not having any left unanswered, unlike him...
...and only me is who was warned and blocked
Curious...
  

"Summary of operations"
To the newcomers in this discussion and also to the selective forgetful ones:

See above The heart of this Case;
As well as the sections Spurious Quotations, Once Again, and sections Warning to Judge by yourselves II in my Talk Page;

To note that 
1) from grammatical objections to the size of version that I propose, no one objection was left standing and even so it continues to be reversed, 
even taking into account that the present version: 
incurs spurious quote in the 1st paragraph, 
too detailed and redundant information (for an article that are supposed to be short...) on the 2nd paragraph, 
and incomplete besides be longer, vague and non neutral in the 3rd...

2) How not to think in double standard when:

The last disruptive revertion, besides be longer than the version I propose, was based entirely on incorrect inferences and historical misconceptions as I shown above (again... See above points A to E in "Once Again" section ) that were related only to the 2nd paragraph (of the version I propose);
and that
No word was uttered against or about the spuriousness that was purged of the 1st paragraph, as well as against or about the 3rd paragraph, that according to some editor (Ctr F on word "solid" to see above, on the discussion about grammar in the "Once Again" section), was "pretty solid"...

And even so, the revertion was done...

So, I again ask you all:

1) Is the spuriousness justifiable under any circunstances?

2) In the case of an encyclopedia that is intended to be free and neutral, which group of honest editors would admit the use of partial referrals that lead to political and historical inferences in favor of a political regime (monarchical, military, etc.) whatever be?

Worse, which group of honest editors would allow the use of spurious citations of a partial source for purposes mentioned above - even if this purposes are involuntary, although the time that passed without actions having been taken, as well as the resistance to remediation maintained, only makes this possibility (of involuntariness) unlikely???

3) Which group of honest editors, ladies and gentlemen, who were truly committed to the freedom and neutrality of such instrument, would vote against such remediation or would omit about it?