One editor of Wikipedia points out reasonable arguments to state Pizzagate in a neutral tone:

... I have a few main points of contention for this: 1. I believe this sets a very slippery slope in allowing blanket "this is false" approaches to any contentious subject (BLP or not) where if suitably strong opinion editors decide something is 'false' then they can approach a subject without citation, source or otherwise, make blanket changes threaten to pull in administrators. Which, while fun, merely brings up more issues. 2. If the claims are suitably BLP offending, then adding "false" and "unfounded" to the front doesn't actually make it any better. We're still repeating the claims, joining the dots and wiki-linking the content. I believe if the subject matter is contentious to that extent the policy is to remove it, rather than make our own op-ed about it. 3. If approach 2 is taken, then this opens the door to serious BLP risks elsewhere on wikipedia where you can literally shit-post anything you like, so long as you say "falsely" first (with or without citation). I don't believe that is appropriate to any article, let alone anything people suggest is a BLP risk. Koncorde (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)>

However, she/he got shut down by other editors repeatedly who put 100% faith only in the MSM BS. More details: Pizzagate Edit War; BLP Risks; NorthBySouthBaranof Attacks another editor Ag97: http://archive.is/LPADT.

I was not certain if they were just random SJWs,or govt-recruited shills until I saw this editor's profile NorthBySouthBaranof: On the right side, it says "This user works for the US Federal Government."

Yes, we now have direct evidence as to why Wikipedia insists on labeling Pizzagate fake. Below is how NorthBySouthBaranof threatens Koncorde who speaks to remain neutral on the subject:

You need to read the sources. The claims are false and have been widely debunked as meritless. Policy and common sense requires that we describe false, defamatory claims about living people as what they are: false. As the cited article from The New York Times states, None of it was true. While Mr. Alefantis has some prominent Democratic friends in Washington and was a supporter of Mrs. Clinton, he has never met her, does not sell or abuse children, and is not being investigated by law enforcement for any of these claims. ([3]) Reliable sources are unanimous in describing the claims this way. If you revert again, I will request administrative intervention. You're a longtime editor and should know better. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)> NorthBySouthBaranof Threatens Koncorde

And his subjects of interest unsurprisingly include the Clinton Foundation.

NorthBySouthBranof's real name has been revealed: Travis Mason-Bushman. He was involved with the Wikipedia's GamerGate controversial edit as well. Though he claims that as an on-duty federal civil servant, he is "legally prohibited from giving you his opinion on any political issue", he certainly eats his own words on his Twitter account (surprise, surprise, he doesn't like Trump). Now that we understand his motive, he can't claim that he is not biased, and by forcing his biased views on Wikipedia's readers, he violates the website's policy of being a neutral platform and should not be involved with editing this topic.

Another super biased SJW editor of Wikipedia: Ian Thomson (who is 100% a Trump Hater). That explains why he only considers NYT, WaPo, etc as credible sources, while dismissing every other source that disagrees with his extremely skewed view point. He single-handedly "dictates the reality" of the two Wikipedia's pages, namely Pizzagate and Comet Ping Pong, and he's currently drafting a page dedicated to Pizzagate (forcing his own beliefs down everyone's throats of course). I think what we can do is to voice our opposition against these two shills/useful idiots from the left to be involved with Pizzagate-related topics, protecting the neutrality of the platform (not misleading people). They've blown their cover (hypocrites - they pretend to be neutral). They are unfit to edit.