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. submitted by /u/1SandyBay1 [link] [comments]