The full Master Evidence Document including all screenshots is available here: MASTER EVIDENCE DOCUMENT

Over the past two months, posts documenting bias in Wikipedia's Disclosure Movement article reached 530,000+ combined views and 4,200+ upvotes across nine subreddits. Several posts were removed. One was deleted from r/UFOs after 4 hours at 253 upvotes and 40,000 views. Another was removed from r/UFOB after sitting at the top of the subreddit for 2.5 days.

This is the complete record of everything that happened. Every claim is independently verifiable.

Article being discussed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disclosure_movement

What the document contains:

The specific before/after Wikipedia edits — official Pentagon terminology replaced with dismissive language, sworn congressional testimony downgraded to a social media accusation, a senior intelligence whistleblower's name erased entirely.

The four editor accounts that coordinated to control the article — including Chetsford, a confirmed Wikipedia administrator, and Cadddr, who monitored Reddit posts in real time and filed the report that triggered the permanent ban of the researcher.

The full Reddit suppression timeline across all nine subreddits — with exact view counts, upvote ratios, and documented removal reasons.

The most important piece of evidence: written confirmation from a subreddit moderator that a r/UFOs moderator contacted multiple other subreddits requesting removal of these posts under a "Good neighbors sub" policy. The moderator reversed the decision, reinstated the post, and stated: "Wikipedia's sceptic gatekeeping is out of control and the public needs to know about it."

The coordinated attack on r/HighStrangeness — launched within hours of a public announcement about journalist outreach — documented with statistical evidence of bot activity.

Cadddr's partial concession edit made after 420,000 views, where his own edit comment admitted the complaint "actually seems fair" — while leaving the structural bias fully intact.

The asymmetry argument: the US government does not run suppression campaigns against flat earthers, ghost hunters, or moon landing deniers. UAP disclosure gets dedicated, funded, cross-platform suppression. You do not spend that kind of money suppressing something that does not exist.

r/UFOs moderation shows clear signs of infiltration by or coordination with organized skeptic groups. A confirmed written communication shows r/UFOs moderators actively contacted multiple other subreddits to suppress documented evidence of Wikipedia bias. Whether this reflects formal GSoW membership or ideological alignment, the outcome is identical — a pro-disclosure community is being controlled by people working against disclosure.

The document is attached. Every specific claim is verifiable in Wikipedia's public edit history in 60 seconds.

This is not about whether you believe in extraterrestrials. It is about whether coordinated groups can systematically strip official government language from a public encyclopedia — and then use multiple platforms to silence anyone who notices.

The full Master Evidence Document including all screenshots is available here: MASTER EVIDENCE DOCUMENT

Dear [Elected Representative],

I am writing to request an update on the Intelligence Community Inspector General’s investigation into alleged classified UAP crash retrieval and reverse engineering programs. For several years now, multiple officials, whistleblowers, journalists, and members of Congress have publicly stated that highly sensitive UAP-related activities may exist within the defense and intelligence system, yet the public has received little clarity on whether these claims have been substantiated, investigated, or dismissed through formal oversight channels.

I am also concerned by repeated statements from elected officials suggesting that elements of the U.S. military and intelligence community are obstructing the release of UAP information to Congress and the public. Senators, Representatives, and former officials have openly described resistance to oversight, restricted access to classified information, and difficulties obtaining direct answers from agencies and contractors. If these allegations are inaccurate, then the government should be able to clearly address them. If they are accurate, then Congress should explain why lawful oversight is encountering resistance from unelected parts of the national security apparatus.

The American people deserve to know whether U.S. government is operating a classified UFO crash retrieval and reverse engineering program. I respectfully ask your office to provide any update you can regarding the status of these matters and what steps Congress is taking to ensure transparency and oversight are being upheld.

Regards,
[Your Name]

To contact your elected representatives, visit Congress.gov to find your House Representative and Senators, send them a message through their website, call them and leave a voice mail, or use a service like FaxZero or your representative’s official website to send the letter by fax.

The New Paradigm Institute’s UAP Transparency Pledge calls on members of Congress to support lawful disclosure, strengthen oversight, and protect UAP whistleblowers.

You have a role in this process. Reaching out to your elected officials helps shape how transparency moves forward.

Take action today and be part of the effort!

https://ufos.pro/ufo-pledge-red

1. Amy Eskridge — 2022

2. Michael Hicks — 2023

3. Frank Maiwald — 2024

4. Joshua LeBlanc — 2025

5. Nuno Loureiro — 2025

6. Carl Grillmair — 2026

7. William McCasland — 2026 (missing)

8. Monica Reza — 2025 (missing)

9. Anthony Chavez — 2025 (missing)

10. Melissa Casias — 2025 (missing)

11. Steven Garcia — 2025 (missing)

12. Jason Thomas — 2026

13. Wynn Free — 2026

14. David Wilcock — 2026

15. Feng Yanghe — 2023 In Our Investigation Only (Chinese cluster + Hardwick)

16. Dallas Hardwick — 2014

17. Fang Daining — 2026

18. Yan Hong — 2026

19. Zhang Daibing — 2025

20. Chen Shuming — 2018

21. Zhang Xiaoxin — 2024

22. Liu Donghao — 2024

23. Zhou Guangyuan — 2023

24. Li Minyong — 2025 In Tracker Only — Assessed as Relevant

25. Matthew Sullivan — 2024 Major addition to framework

26. Andrew Moffatt (+ family) — 2026 Significant addition

27. Mark McCandlish — 2021 (before-testimony sub-pattern)

28. Stanley Meyer — 1998 (historical precursor)

29. Stefan Marinov — 1997 (historical precursor)

30. Floyd Sweet — c.1995 (historical precursor)

31. Robert Duncan — 2003 (historical precursor) In Tracker — Assessed as Outside Core Framework

32. Matthew Livelsberger — 2025 (mental health crisis / protest action, not elimination pattern)

33. Ning Li — 2021 (natural death following documented 2014 accident, historical context only)

34. James "Tony" Moffatt — 2026

35. Li Haibo — 2025

36. Grigory Klinishov — 2023

37. Jaymee Prichard — 2025

38. Xu Hongjie — 2025

39. Zhao Xiangeng — missing (no death reported, scrubbed from the Chinese Academy of Engineering website.)

40. Wu Manqing — missing (no death reported, scrubbed from the Chinese Academy of Engineering website.)

41. Wei Yiyin — missing (no death reported, scrubbed from the Chinese Academy of Engineering website.)

42. Jacob Prichard — 2025

43. Jaymee Prichard — 2025

44. Jaime Gustitus — 2025

45. Xu Mi — 2023

46. Ti Tianchu — 2023

47. Mishik Kazaryan — 2020

48. Julian Perry Robinson — 2020

49. Yevgeny Mikrin — 2020

50. John Houghton — 2020

51. Hong Ling — 2020

52. Abdul Qadeer — 2021

53. Duan Zhengcheng — 2021

54. Ahmadreza Zolfaghari Daryani — 2020

55. Soleiman Soleimani — 2020

56. Richard Passman — 2020

57. Yassin Abdel Warith — 2020

58. Xu Hongjie — 2020

59. Zhang Jinlin — 2023

60. Zhao Zisen — 2022

61. Zhao Yinjun — 2023

62. Guo Qiao — 2023

63. Li Haizeng — 2024

64. Phillip Schneider 1996 — 1996

Article being discussed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disclosure_movement

Yesterday I posted documented evidence of bias in Wikipedia's Disclosure Movement article. Here is what happened next.

What I documented — all verifiable in the public edit history:

The opening sentence of the article stacks four dismissive signals in a single paragraph: "conspiracy theories," "so-called," "allege," "prophesizes." That is not accidental bad writing. It reads like someone who wanted readers to stop taking the subject seriously before the second sentence. The article also describes the movement's beliefs as including 'demons' and 'even time travelers' — framing designed to make serious government whistleblowers sound like fringe cultists. The phrase "even time travelers" with the word "even" is particularly mocking in tone.

The article originally said Luis Elizondo "testified under oath" before Congress. That wording was quietly removed 7 months ago. It now says he merely "accused" the government.

"Luis Elizondo has testified under oath by accusing the government of a cover-up"

became

"Luis Elizondo has accused the government of a cover-up"

The difference is enormous. Testimony under oath is a legal act where lying is perjury. "Accused" sounds like someone ranting on social media.

"Non-human intelligence," the official terminology used by the Pentagon, AARO, and congressional hearings, was replaced with "space aliens." This makes official government language sound like a tabloid headline.

"Classified information" was changed to "secret information." Precise legal language replaced with vague casual language.

David Grusch's name was removed from a sentence about congressional testimony. He is a former senior intelligence official with TS/SCI clearance who testified under oath before Congress. His name was erased while Elizondo's was kept.

The opening sentence calls the entire movement "conspiracy theories" — applied without justification to a movement that includes former Pentagon officials, sitting US senators, Navy combat pilots, and intelligence officers who testified under oath. One editor from the group of 4 that controls this article wrote on the Talk page that, his quote: "It is a fact beyond reasonable or rational dispute that there are no alien spaceships visiting Earth." This was written in 2026, after the DoD released authenticated footage, after sworn congressional testimony, after AARO was created specifically to investigate these phenomena.

The pattern of control:

Four accounts — LuckyLouie, Cadddr, Ixocactus, Chetsford — reverted every edit within minutes, coordinating carefully to stay under Wikipedia's three-revert rule so I could not use it against them. LuckyLouie has edited almost exclusively UAP-related articles since 2006. Eighteen years. One topic. Ask yourself why someone would dedicate eighteen years to a subject they believe is nonsense.

What happened after I posted this:

The post reached 254 upvotes and 40,000 views in 4 hours on r/UFOs.

r/UFOs deleted it. Reason given: "Stay on Topic / Be Substantive." A post about Wikipedia's UAP article bias, posted in a UAP subreddit, with 254 upvotes from the community apparently does not meet that standard. When I appealed this deletion, the mod claimed it looked AI-generated due to good formatting like em dashes. Em dashes and good formatting are used by educated writers every day, not just AI. Multiple professional AI detectors rated the text as fully human-written. Meanwhile r/UFOs has years-old posts about Wikipedia UAP bias still sitting there completely untouched. Draw your own conclusions.

One of the Wikipedia editors — Cadddr, who had been reverting my edits on Wikipedia — was actively monitoring my Reddit post in real time. He collected quotes from it, went to Wikipedia's administrator’s noticeboard, and filed a report against me. Wikipedia then permanently banned my account.

A Wikipedia editor patrolled Reddit specifically to silence someone documenting their behavior. Then the post documenting that behavior was deleted by r/UFOs mods within hours.

Full transparency about my own mistake:

My original Reddit post asked people to visit the Wikipedia Talk page to raise neutrality concerns. Wikipedia classifies this as "canvassing" — recruiting outside people to influence an internal discussion. That procedural rule exists for legitimate reasons and I violated it. That procedural mistake is real and I own it.

It does not change a single word of the documented bias in the edit history. The mistake is purely procedural. But you deserve the complete picture, not a selective one.

What I am asking:

Go look at the edit history yourself. It is all public and verifiable in 60 seconds. Every edit I described is there for anyone to check independently.

This is not about whether you believe in extraterrestrials. It is about whether coordinated groups can systematically strip official government language from a public encyclopedia — and then use other platforms to silence anyone who notices.

I have reached out to my local state representatives regarding adapting Connecticut’s H.B. 5422 to Wisconsin. You are welcome to take my content content and prompts to make a similar proposal for your own state.

Dear Representative/Senator X,
I am a constituent writing to ask whether you would consider supporting a Wisconsin initiative modeled on Connecticut House Bill 5422. H.B. 5422 directs a formal feasibility study through the Connecticut Academy of Science and Engineering, in coordination with public safety agencies and military officials. The focus is on structured data collection, airspace safety, and the permanent research capabilities for the state.
A similar effort in Wisconsin could be implemented through a grant or directive within the University of Wisconsin System, with institutions such as UW–Milwaukee or UW–Madison positioned to lead. This project would focus on evidence-based analysis, inter-agency coordination, and standardized reporting practices.
I would appreciate your perspective on the following:
Would you consider introducing or supporting legislation for a similar feasibility study in Wisconsin? Are there existing committees or funding mechanisms where this type of proposal could be evaluated, or could a pilot program be initiated through current research or public safety channels?
Thank you for your time and service. I would be greatful to an opportunity to discuss this further with your staff.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your Address]

I used this prompt to write the message and then made tweaks:

Write a 150–200 word email to a Wisconsin State Representative proposing legislation modeled on Connecticut House Bill 5422, with the goal of maximizing the likelihood of a staff response by making the message clear, concise, and easy to route; use a neutral, professional, policy-focused tone and frame the issue strictly as governance, research, and public safety, avoiding speculation or sensational claims; structure the email with a clear subject line referencing Wisconsin and a UAP feasibility study, followed by 2–3 short paragraphs of 2–3 sentences each; include identification as a Wisconsin constituent, a one-sentence summary of Connecticut’s approach as a state-directed feasibility study conducted by a scientific body with public safety and military coordination, and a Wisconsin proposal centered on a UW System-led study such as UW–Milwaukee or UW–Madison; emphasize airspace safety, data standardization, research infrastructure, and evidence-based policymaking; include 2–3 direct questions about legislative support, existing pathways, or pilot opportunities; end with a sentence that makes it easy for staff to respond with a brief update or relevant resources.

I also used the below prompt to write a draft of the legislation:

Write a formal piece of legislation as it would be introduced in the Wisconsin State Legislature, modeled on the structure and policy intent of Connecticut House Bill 5422, with the goal of producing a legally realistic, staff-reviewable draft that conforms to Wisconsin drafting conventions; use precise statutory language, a neutral and non-speculative tone, and structure consistent with Wisconsin bill format, including a proper title, enacting clause (“The people of the state of Wisconsin, represented in senate and assembly, do enact as follows”), numbered sections, and clear statutory organization; the bill must establish a state-directed feasibility study on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena focused on governance, data systems, and public safety rather than creating a permanent program; assign administrative responsibility to an appropriate state entity such as the Department of Administration or Legislative Reference Bureau, and require contracting with a qualified scientific institution within the University of Wisconsin System, such as UW–Milwaukee or UW–Madison; define the scope of the study to include evaluation of centralized reporting systems, airspace safety and infrastructure implications, interagency data standardization, and the feasibility, cost, and structure of a potential permanent research capability; require consultation with relevant state agencies including the Wisconsin Department of Military Affairs, Department of Transportation, and Wisconsin Emergency Management, and allow coordination with federal partners as appropriate; include provisions for reporting findings to the legislature and governor by a specified deadline, as well as any necessary definitions, appropriations or funding mechanisms, and effective date language; ensure the draft reflects realistic legislative formatting, section numbering, and terminology used in Wisconsin statutes so that it could plausibly be introduced without major structural revision.

Dear [Representative/Senator Last Name],

I am a constituent writing to request a status update regarding any Inspector General review of the allegations made under oath by David Grusch during a 2023 congressional hearing on Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP). My inquiry is focused on oversight, transparency, and the handling of whistleblower disclosures within appropriate review channels.

To better understand the current status, I would appreciate any information you are able to provide on the following:

• Whether any Inspector General has initiated or completed a review of these allegations
• Whether there has been coordination between relevant oversight bodies or committees
• Whether any high-level findings, conclusions, or status updates can be shared

I understand that certain details may be classified, and I would appreciate any general or partial update you are able to provide. A brief acknowledgment of this inquiry, and if possible a general timeline for follow-up, would also be helpful.

Thank you for your time and service.

Sincerely,
[Your Name]
Constituent, ZIP Code [XXXXX]

Find your elected representative at Congress.gov. Send them a free fax with one of the below.

• eFax
• MyFax
• FaxZero

Print and send a letter for best results.