Talk:PlainSite

Neutral Point of View

Hi QRep2020,

I don't agree that the edits constitute vandalism. PlainSite is well known for their short selling activities, especially in regards to Tesla and Elon Musk. However, they have openly discussed the fact that they are also shorting Facebook, Credit Acceptance Corporation, Shopify, and others. Hiding this important context threatens the page's neutral point of view and compromises the user's understanding of the topic at hand. In discussing controversies surrounding PlainSite, the back and forth between Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Plainsite founder Aaron Greenspan is certainly relavent. The tweets in question have been cited directly.

You seem to be focused on editing multiple pages about Tesla short sellers (such as the TSLAQ page and this one, among others), and you mentioned on your talk page that "I am trying to steer the page away from this characterization" that "TSLAQ is a group of short sellers". In this case, PlainSite is in fact a Tesla short seller and has admitted publicly to having a position in the company's stock, as noted on the page for some time. While I appreciate that you may want to "steer the page away from this characterization", I must remind you that articles on Wikipedia should have a Neutral point of view. Rather than simply reverting edits that don't reflect your viewpoint, please try and cite relavent information that supports your perspective.

Finally, I noticed that one of the Reddit comments from PlainSite I had cited was deleted by the author shortly after you reverted the changes. It would appear that you are either working closely with or representing the subject of the page and communicating with them about the changes you are making. Please review Wikipedia's policy on editing your own page. In a situation where the topic in question concerns you or someone you know personally, please make suggestions or corrections on the associated talk page, and wait for someone who is not communicating with the subject to edit the page to reflect your corrections in an impartial way. Furthermore, threatening to block editing privileges for "vandalism" over constructive edits to the page that add important context to the discussion is wrong. Please do not manipulate Wikipedia for self-promotion, including attempting to frame the debate around a topic you may be covering in your reporting or writing on "Q groups" (though you seem to be exclusively focused on TSLAQ so far)

Full protection due to edit war

As there is an ongoing back-and-forth content dispute in progress, I have locked the page from editing for 48 hours to allow for discussion to take place and for consensus to be determined as to what should be included and excluded from the page content. Please bear in mind WP:NPOV, WP:VNT, WP:COI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:49, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hiding information about short selling

This page mentions that PlainSite is engaged in short selling, betting against the stock of companies that it compiles research reports on. This is important context for the public to understand this website. However, any mention of this short selling activity is quickly removed, often by user QRep2020 who seems to also be editing other pages about Tesla short sellers. Why is this information being removed? This seems to be a violation of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cihwcihw (talk • contribs) 00:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Please explain how am I hiding information when the article already, like you said, mentions that the owner of the company has disclosed that he shorted Tesla? Meanwhile, you have repeatedly attempted to vandalize the article by changing the explanation of the purpose of the Plainsite to be one about short-seller enrichment, which it clearly is not and you have yet to provide an independent, reliable, third-party source for.

Do you have a COI with Plainsite perhaps? You seem to have an abnormal interest in discrediting a small nonprofit. And what about the "sources" you tried to link, do you have any connection to them? Their authors look to be throwing around the very same unsupported claims. QRep2020 (talk) 23:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I just saw something about the creator of the site admitting to fraud, surely at least something on the page should be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0w0 catt0s (talk • contribs) 05:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a link to this supposed admission? QRep2020 (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)