"
Well, I could list here examples throughout history, where ""problems of mutual understanding"" regarding the language, even among natives of an same language, has been used to selectively ignore fair doubts, claims, appeals, complaints, etc...
But, to not make this answer ""too big"", 
and mainly considering (once more) your answer as good faith and not as an attempt of tergiversation, 

and before ask you why do you discern a serious distinction between what I'm pointing and what, in general, in  publications (whether paper or electronic) that claim to be neutral, usually leads historians, journalists, editors and commentators to, at least, be warned, by not follow certain guidelines of editorial standards involving accuracy and/or impartiality,

or ask you specific questions about double standard (ie an editor makes me baseless accusations in a certain tone, I respond to him in the same mode, but specifically to those charges, and only me is who become warned and blocked);

I ask you, what in this section are not clear to you?
  "