Wikipedia Admin Filibusters Crash Override Network Page To Bury Chat Leaks
Wikipedia CrashOverride Network

Every major outlet that covered and promoted Crash Override Network has been contacted about the CON leaks exposing the organization for having engaged in harassment and doxing. The authors of those pieces have been reached out to, but the outlets themselves have neither acknowledged nor responded to any requests for comment or updates regarding the Crash Override Network leaks that occurred at the end of August. I’ve personally tried reaching out to some, but have been blocked on Twitter or received no response via e-mail.

Nevertheless, Wikipedia’s administrator, MastCell, has locked the Crash Override Network Wikipedia page after removing the mention about their illicit involvement with harassment, sabotage, doxing and targeted abuse, all of which were documented in the leaked chat logs. The reason? Not enough reliable coverage from mainstream media.

Other users, like MjolnirPants, who identifies as a “male feminist” according to his user profile, have begun to filibuster — alongside Mastcell — the Crash Override Network article with sophistry and equivocation centered around Ashe Schow and the Washington Examiner. Evidently, they’re attempting to discount the inclusion of the mention of the leaked chat logs because they question Ian Miles Cheong’s credibility, and believe Schow is just an “opinion writer”.

According to Mastcell, on September 13th, 2016, it’s stated on Wikipedia’s Talk page

“First of all, contentious material touching on living people needs exceptionally strong sourcing. Lacking such sourcing, the material should not appear, and it is in fact a serious violation of policy to keep re-inserting poorly sourced material attacking living people. Secondly, the burden of proof is on those wishing to include the contentious material, meaning that it should not appear in the article unless/until there is a clear consensus that it is relevant and properly sourced.


“In accordance with WP:BLP, and with my responsibility as an administrator to enforce it, I’ve removed the material from the article pending further discussion here and/or at WP:RS/N (as linked above). Further violations of WP:BLP are likely to result in sanctions against individual editors, particularly since this topic area is subject to discretionary sanctions and editors should be working harder to comply with policy, rather than skirting it”

So in laymen terms, Mastcell is saying that the chat logs – even speaking in a matter of fact tone about them – is too contentious to add to the article without “exceptionally strong sourcing”. Except, that isn’t in the BLP section of Wikipedia’s rule set at all. As a matter of fact, it explicitly states…

“Wikipedia articles concerning living persons may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved. “

It doesn’t require “exceptionally strong sourcing”, simply “reliably sourced” material. In this case, Mastcell seems to be pushing the goalpost.

Mastcell also tries to put the onus on the reliability of the Washington Examiner, stating that Ashe Schow and the site itself is not reliable enough in order to include the mention about the CON leaks, this is despite the fact that previously the Washington Examiner has been considered reliable by Wikipedia, even being one of the main citations in a Wikipedia article about Conservative media outlet The Federalist.

User James J. Lambden retorted that 17 total Wikipedia editors, eight registered accounts and nine IPs, have all voted in favor of using the Washington Examiner as a source. Only one editor balked up a storm at the sources, PeterTheFourth, while Fangrim was labeled as “questionable”.

Despite the overwhelming consensus to include the information, MjolnirPants objects after doing original research, searching out comments by Randi Lee Harper on Twitter, where he mentions on the talk page…

“Even if we accept the [Washington Examiner] piece as reliable, that’s only a single reliable source. A disgruntled former members of a group is as likely to be an unreliable as a reliable primary source. With no way to verify the chat logs, we don’t know that they are accurate themselves. Furthermore, a current member of the group have indicated that the logs have been edited, and are “not CO logs”, whatever that means.”

But is a “disgruntled former member” so much more unreliable as a source than a close associate of a source promoting the organization? I’m talking about former Gamasutra managing news editor and Guardian contributor, Leigh Alexander, who has the very first citation on Crash Override Network’s Wikipedia page.

Alexander’s own Wikipedia profile even highlights a couple of connections to Quinn beyond the citation and mention of Zoe in the Guardian piece.

If the article is supposed to be neutral, why is undue weight being given to those close to Quinn, while reports about chat logs that contained actual comments from Quinn – and reported on by an actual former member of the organization where the chat logs came from – being dismissed? This is especially troubling given that Quinn herself admitted to sabotaging a $400,000 game jam in the chat logs, and Harper and others within the logs acknowledged doxing those associated with #GamerGate. Are we now to ignore the words from the very people that the Wikipedia page is about?

There’s a troubling trend on the talk page of Crash Override Network where facts aren’t being weighed fairly and there’s a lot of equivocation to justify the positives and ignore the negatives about the organization, even when the weight of the sources are either the same or stacked against those giving positive feedback on the organization, such as the citation for Destructoid. This makes one question: how is Washington Examiner less reliable than Destructoid in the eyes of Wikipedia?

Well, keep in mind that in the previous article here on One Angry Gamer about Wikipedia’s politics regarding reliable sources, they consider Jim Sterling reliable on occasion but not TechRaptor. Why? Because Jim Sterling has been quoted by other Wikipedia reliable sources. Thus, it completes the circle.

So Destructroid is a reliable source for Crash Override Network’s Wiki entry, but so far the irrefutable chat logs covered by a former member of the group and a national media outlet like the Washington Examiner are not. Well, that’s according to PeterTheFourth, who has consistently been modifying the Crash Override Network page to remove any mention of the chat logs, according to the revision history on Wikipedia.

Interestingly enough, PeterTheFourth was spotted making comments and carousing on the anti-#GamerGate sub-Reddit called Gamer Ghazi, as spotted by Twitter user Nuckable.

Peter was also involved with ridiculing other supposed “Pro-#GG” editors on a now defunct website called Sealions of Wikipedia. PeterTheFourth was joined by other Wikipedia editors such as Mark Bernstein, Tarc and Ryulong, as they condemned #GamerGate while also — at the time — editing the article to fit their narrative. Archives of the Sealions of Wikipedia reveal Peter and the others in the comment sections, which were pointed out by an anonymous critic of Wikipedia, who feared being doxed for highlighting the information.

According to Wikipedia’s own rules regarding BLPs (biographies of living persons) – which is the term that Mastcell cited as the reason for the removal of the mention of the chat logs on the CON Wikipedia article – it states…

“More generally, editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of an article should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally, if they choose to edit it at all.”

Given PeterTheFourth’s involvement with a known adversary to #GamerGate and given his protective nature toward Zoe Quinn and Crash Override Network, this alone violates the spirit of Wikipedia’s policy regarding editors working on biographies of living persons.

By MastCell’s own adherence to the rules, shouldn’t someone with too close a connection to the material step away to avoid overstepping a BLP violation? Threatening sanctions on editors for simply adding in the facts seems counterproductive, especially in the face of allowing an editor with vested interests to maintain editing a page where the facts are purposefully being scrubbed.

That’s not to mention that one of the editors that PeterTheFourth was working with diligently on the #GamerGate article, Ryulong, was found to have been in cahoots with members from Crash Override Network, making edits at their behest. Ryulong was also being funded by the very same Gamer Ghazi.

Of course, the page is in a stalemate at the moment because the filibustering over the reliable source claim hovering over Ashe Schow and Washington Examiner is preventing the claim from being added, despite the fact that they have a Destructoid link in there praising the organization. One question I have is: if Destructoid reported on the Crash Override Network leaks, would that then warrant inclusion in the article?

MastCell and PeterTheFourth have repeatedly mentioned that they’re waiting on other “mainstream” websites to report on the leaks, to which none have done so beyond Heat Street and Washington Examiner.

One user simply takes time to point out in the off-topic section that the bureaucratic politicking is showing Wikipedia’s hand even more-so than some of the biased articles on the site, where they write…

“Hello, Internet. I see some of you have taken interest in this article. I just wanted to let you all know that yes, an admin with a historical record of POV pushing has scrubbed and locked this page. Yes that same admin is now AWOL. Yes, the dissenting opinion of 1 or 2 editors was enough to override two primary sources verifying the a primary document and a dozen editors agreeing with it’s relevance. Yes, Wikipedia definitely deserves it reputation for political hackery.”

Pleas to have Jimmy Wales, the owner of Wikipedia, to step in and at least ensure that the facts are displayed in an honest manner have fallen on ears that result in smarmy responses and snickering.

More obviously, editors who are not showing partisanship to politics (one way or the other) have blatantly made it clear that adding in a section in the Wiki article explaining that Crash override Network members have engaged in harassment, doxing and abuse would destroy the current narrative being peddled in the media. That’s not to mention that such an admission would result in the #GamerGate Wikipedia page needing serious reconsideration regarding the media’s claims made therein.


Billy has been rustling Jimmies for years covering video games, technology and digital trends within the electronics entertainment space. The GJP cried and their tears became his milkshake. Need to get in touch? Try the Contact Page.

  • Meittimies

    If this blatant cronyism and twisting of facts keeps up any longer, I smell a lot of lawsuits against Wikipedia in the future when they get too cocky and make the mistake of making false claims about someone with their own original research.

    But yeah, this is a good example for the reason why Wikipedia is not an accepted source on science- or history academias and quoting Wikipedia or even linking to it in their communities results in an instant ban. This bias and the inherent weaknesses and corruption within their community is very well known. The whole site is rotting from inside out, it deserves to die and be driven to the ground at this point. It is a mockery of an encyclopedia.

  • giygas

    Rules exist on Wikipedia for one reason, and that is to bludgeon anyone the corrupt admins disagree with.

  • Mr.Towel

    Heh, this is strongly reminding me the debates about the actual USSR body count…

  • Alistair

    Hmmm “secondly, the burden of proof is on those wishing to include….”

    Well the only place to burden of proof its the courts, the fact they did stealthly addmited the leaks not actually naming it but saying living person should not be attack and the burden of proof is not for CON but us.

    If no media covers this or websites you can still take legal advice and legal action people sue papers for putting they lifes out in public space.

    People take injunction to stop papers saying nasty things, i can basically take those websites that called me gamers are dead and like IS terrorists.

    In short they can refuse saying anything but cant when a court order upon them and im no lawyer. I seen people lives ruin like tv stars accuse of wrong doing and yes papers pay a heavy fine that will hurt CON and wiki and any websites.

    So yes regression left dig yourselves deeper and deeper into already big hole. Your time has come.

  • Hawk Hopper

    …they [Wikipedia] consider Jim Sterling reliable on occasion but not TechRaptor. Why? Because Jim Sterling has been quoted by other Wikipedia reliable sources. Thus, it completes the circle.

    The Wikipedia reliable sources circle jerk.

    • Spider Jerusalem

      Citogenesis is a hell of a drug.

  • Ian Miles Cheong confirmed the logs are real and even people involved in them defend themselves like only people who were actually involved in something would defend themselves. But Wikipedia demands “stronger” sourcing. GTFO.

  • It’s time to move this to a higher power. The people. When Wikipedia starts up their bi-monthy donation drive, all the information about how Wikipedia is allowing moderators edit and remove the information in the encyclopedia based on their personal politics. I would also suggest reaching out to the major donators to Wikimedia Foundation. If Wikipedia refuses to be an unbiased and objective information source, then they shouldn’t be gathering funds based on that premise.

    • I agree, but then there could be the chance that some of the major donators might even be SJWs themselves…

    • politicalcynic


  • scemar

    a clear agenda at work, they now justify breaking every rule and betraying every principle

    the corruption spoken in “conspiracy theories” becomes clear when they are presented with the facts and don’t like them

    this is going to my wikipedia corruption log

    • Mainstream media and games media supports them, protects them, encourages and promotes their kind of behavior as well.

      Imagine if these tossers didn’t have the backing of MSM?

  • “Not enough reliable coverage from mainstream media”

    “they’re waiting on other “mainstream” websites to report on the leaks”

    “they question Ian Miles Cheong’s credibility, and believe Schow is just an “opinion writer””

    Well isn’t that convenient for them?

    What’s the bet that if it was the other way round – i.e. the leaks were a GamerGate conversation – they would have put it up themselves and made sure it stayed?

    • No need to bet. It already appears in the GG Wiki article.

      They’ve literally cited IRC logs that were later debunked by the Escapist as being from the public chat, which contained some people who were just saying what you would typically find in a public 4chan IRC. Of course, the full logs and the Escapist piece explaining the situation were ignored.

      Conveniently there’s actual hypocrisy here in the way the citations are being used, but the Wikipedia tyrants seem to think that no one would fact check them.

      • Fearghul

        Fact checking would obviously fall foul of the “no original research” rule…or as I like to think of it the “fuck testable reality” rule

  • Grey

    There is a level of egotism here that I cannot fathom. The apparent notion that they could not have possibly been mistaken about the character of those they allied themselves with.

    If someone came to me tomorrow with evidence on the level of the CON leaks that those in GamerGate I had met and admired had been colluding in secret to harass and frighten away those who they disagreed with or had personal petty grudges against, if absolutely nothing else I would ask for an accounting of their words. Instead of asking that, we’re watching hundreds of people – many of whom have somehow been granted positions of authority over major information hubs – jam their heads so deep into the sand that they’re popping out in China.

    Wikipedia can go stuff itself for daring to suggest they are a reliable source of information on any politically charged topic after blatant displays of favoritism, cronyism, and mercenary editing that came about due to GamerGate or the CON leaks.

    • ShepardRahl

      The GameJournoPros list and all of these chat log leaks have proven that these people are so in bed with each other (sometimes literally) that if the narrative is destroyed or one of them is exposed by real media they know the shit will roll downhill on the rest of them fast. So they have no choice but to circle the wagons.

      That’s why they defend people like Sarah Nyberg, who in one of their chatlogs, admitted to being a pedophile and tried to share pics of his 9 year old cousin with them.

      • Oh man, I forgot that they had the GameJournoPros entire Wiki page deleted in order to cover up the tracks. It’s astounding how they attempt to rewrite history.

        • “History is written by the victors. History is filled with liars.”

          That whole speech by Captain Price, just prior to the final story mission of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, just so eerily appropriate in my eyes, for this whole situation.

          • You know reality is screwed up real bad when Call of Duty becomes prescient.

    • Fenrir007

      They know pretty damn well about the rotten character of their idols, but the most important thing for an SJW is their narrative. Above all things, it must survive

      • E Ai Fenrir bom demais? gostaria de te fazer um convite pra fazer parte da Brothers PS4

        Criamos um canal no Youtube chamado Brothers PS4, para quem quiser postar Gameplays de jogos. Aliamos ele a um grupo no Whatsapp para as pessoas comentarem sobre games, combinar jogatinas, etc. Nosso ideal é fazer a comunidade PS4 crescer e se tornar unida, ajudando uns aos outros. Tem interesse? Se quiser, você também terá o direito de postar seus próprios gameplays. Ou então você pode somente colaborar conosco se inscrevendo no canal:

        se tiver interesse em entrar em um grupo no whats ou mandar seus videos por favor mande email pra

  • Wikipedia isn’t a reliable source, they have made this abundantly clear.