User talk:Kristina451

Recent edit to IEX

Promotional content. See WP:NOTADVERTISING Thank you! MrBill3 (talk) 02:46, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you as well! So how should I go about the issues pointed out at the discussion page? May you have a look please? KristinaChi (talk) 02:55, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I noticed your edits to IEX and its talk page; I will try to comment there in the next few days. Welcome to Wikipedia, by the way; if you have any questions you're welcome to ask me on my talk page. I'm very busy this weekend but should have more time after Monday. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warm welcome to both of you Mike and Bill! Mike I'm looking forward to your commentary when you get to it. KristinaChi (talk) 05:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again - I'm on the train in to Manhattan and found enough time to make some edits - take a look and see if it looks more balanced now. Glad to see that you plan to edit on financial topics; that's an area where we could use more experts. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thanks for looking into this. I hope you had or still have a nice trip! Well done with the article and I'd like to mention some other things on the talk page if I may. I wish I were more of an expert but if you think I could be of help somewhere please let me know. KristinaChi (talk) 05:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, KristinaChi! Thank you for your contributions. I am MrBill3 and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! MrBill3 (talk) 04:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KristinaChi, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi KristinaChi! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Benzband (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest and harassment

Hello,

I want to bring to your attention that when investigating possible cases of conflict of interest editing, editors must be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the conflict of interest guideline. I have elevated this to the issue to the administrator's noticeboard seeing that you have named my employer and made defamatory claims about my employer.

Thanks. Sophie.grothendieck (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is untrue. It is your firm that calls itself "a high-frequency trading hedge fund at the intersection of computer science and finance" on its own presentation slides. And it was you who asked for the IP look-up that I did, after you have asked for it twice:

I work at a buy-side firm and you can carry out a reverse-lookup of my IP address (see the edit history of this talk page) to verify this.
— Sophie.grothendieck (talk) 06:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

If you look-up my IP address from the revision history of Brad Katsuyama, anyone from the public can find the name of our group
— Sophie.grothendieck (talk) 08:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Emphasis added, and there is some leeway in the timestamps because you were unable to properly sign your comments. Kristina451 (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

good afternoon Kristina451,

Kristina451,

to answer your question i code manually and are getting the hang of each little piece of code,

plus when i was coding this i was also on skype a private english student, ) multi tasking while working !! and i just did it piece by piece to check how i memorized the code. i got it now !

have you read the book Flash Boys the book, its really amazing,! Front running, Algorithmic trading, High-frequency trading, and Dark liquidity are all facinating topics ! i am very interested in economics and finance,, and especially programming

wikipedia is like HTML and its fun to work with . the wikipedia project is amazing!

There are currently 4,678,930 articles in the English Wikipedia. have a great day David Adam Kess (talk) 11:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(and as you can see it was five edits for me to work this code out on your user page ! CHEERS — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Adam Kess (talk • contribs) 16:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

to your question that you left on my user Page.... a very good question, i read the edit log and saw that people had deleted info from Flash Boys, someone had the idea to put it into the article and then someone took it out, then i looked at who did it and it was an ISP user, and not a regualr user! so i decided to add a heading and call it "Exposing Dark liquidity" , Cheers and have a great day

In finance, a dark pool (also black pool) is a private forum for trading securities that is not openly available to the public.

this is the first line in wikipedia and notice the phrase, not openly available to the public. so i figure that a title on "Exposing Dark liquidity" could be good for the general public !

David Adam Kess (talk) 12:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind answers to my questions David Adam Kess. I'll reply on your talk page. You too have a great day! Kristina451 (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

my final response dark pools

In finance, a dark pool (also black pool) is a private forum for trading securities that is not openly available to the public. Liquidity on these markets is called dark pool liquidity.^[1] The bulk of dark pool trades represent large trades by financial institutions that are offered away from public exchanges like the New York Stock Exchange and the NASDAQ, so that such trades remain confidential and outside the purview of the general investing public. The fragmentation of financial trading venues and electronic trading has allowed dark pools to be created, and they are normally accessed through crossing networks or directly among market participants via private contractual arrangements.

the first line in wikipedia and notice the phrase, not openly available to the public. so i figure that a title on "Exposing Dark liquidity" could be good for the general public ! David Adam Kess (talk) 3:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/92.23.255.181

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/92.23.255.181

a lot more minus than plus !!

14:35, 4 November 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-1,944)‎ . . Dark liquidity ‎ (Tag: section blanking) 14:24, 4 November 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-786)‎ . . Dark liquidity ‎ 14:20, 4 November 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+29)‎ . . Dark liquidity ‎ (→‎Broker-dealer-owned dark pools) 14:19, 4 November 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+29)‎ . . Dark liquidity ‎ (→‎Independent dark pools) 14:18, 4 November 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,883)‎ . . Dark liquidity ‎

14:08, 4 November 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+29)‎ . . List of asset management firms ‎ (→‎Asia) 14:07, 4 November 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-1,356)‎ . . List of asset management firms ‎ 14:05, 4 November 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-102)‎ . . List of asset management firms ‎ (→‎North America) 14:03, 4 November 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-10,452)‎ . . Local government in England ‎ 14:01, 4 November 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+116)‎ . . Local government in England ‎ 13:58, 4 November 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+10,336)‎ . . Local government in England ‎ 13:43, 4 November 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-10,308)‎ . . Local government in England ‎ 13:41, 4 November 2014 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . Local government in England ‎ 13:38, 4 November 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+10,175)‎ . . Local government in England ‎

References

^ "Glossary - Dark Pools". Investopedia. Retrieved 2011-06-20.

since you put me on the /Wikipedia:Administrators, i added you too, !

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#wikipeida_stalker_Kristina451

--  David  Adam   Kess^\ talk / 2nd of  February 2015 (UTC)

Just a thought

If you wanted to you can place some user-boxes on your main page to tell about your self a bit. I invite you to take a look at Wikipedia:Userboxes, you don't have to but it can help editors get an idea on what your editing preferences or interests are on Wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting suggestion. I briefly browsed through these boxes, there must be thousands of them. My interests on Wikipedia are narrow due to the amount of time for me to spend here. Kristina451 (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given your interests, these might be of interest. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

$/¢

This user is/was a
Stockbroker

This user is a professional
Securities Trader

Block
[edit]
I have very serious concerns about your use of this account, and have blocked you until we can get to the bottom of it. You keep removing the same text form discussions, several edits have been suppressed due to privacy concerns, and your actual contributions to the encyclopaedia appear on the face of it to consist largely of reverts, often reverting the same thing multiple times. I think you need to give an account of yourself and supply some context. Guy (Help!) 08:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I previously had arguments with two editors. One got blocked due to copyright violations and competence issues [1] and his IP later for block evasion. [2] I did the work of undoing his subpar contributions to finance articles, with instructions of how to properly restore if someone likes to. In one article I followed this myself to do a cleanup rather than a revert. [3]
The other person I had an argument with is a serial sockpuppeteer and really just one editor, see the SPI opened. The person is an interest-conflicted high-frequency trader and lies through his teeth. He even manipulated diff links in the SPI [4] and after I replied, he modified his false statements (to another falsehood). [5] What I removed from the SPI was a personal attack as explained in my edit summaries and I was careful to not violate 3RR. I wanted to have an underailed investigation for once.
I was also careful to not violate WP:OUTING by asking about it first on the administrators' noticeboard, see this discussion shortly before it got archived. [6] Simply put, what I did was not outing. Please do restore my recently hidden edits. I believe you are not doing Wikipedia a favor by overprotecting a dishonest, interest-conflicted serial sockpuppeteer. If you have any more questions, please ask them. Kristina451 (talk) 12:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Might be helpful that 'Sophie.grothendieck' conceded WP:MEAT, no diff due to redaction of other text. This remained, though: "The more likely explanation is that these editors showed up because I emailed a buy-side mailing list about the IEX article to invite editors (...) Sophie.grothendieck (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)" Likewise, 'PortugueseManofPeace' conceded WP:MEAT, although tried to implicate an uninvolved editor. [7] It was WP:SOCK all the time. Kristina451 (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot restore the deleted edits, they were suppressed by WP:OVERSIGHT (which is a fairly big deal in Wikipedia terms). I am waiting for an Oversighter to comment on the deleted material. Guy (Help!) 17:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Asking for this [8] to be considered when evaluating deleted material. It was 100% accurate at the time of posting and I can supply a saved WHOIS page if needed. Kristina451 (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NLT advises to report to ANI or an administrator. @JzG: Two legal threats were made against me at the AN. Also if possible, I would like to be able to discuss my block at the AN section about me and agree to be confined to it. Kristina451 (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that my comment alone prompted the offender to modify/remove both legal threats. Kristina451 (talk) 09:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Kristina451 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Many of my edits incrementally improved Wikipedia. I fixed typos.[9][10] I fixed improper capitalization.[11][12] I consolidated duplicte references already in the article.[13][14] I formatted references.[15][16] I fixed incorrect direct quotes from sources.[17][18] I added substantial, well sourced content.[19][20][21][22][23] I disagree with the finding of "Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia".
It is true that there were also issues. After my most substantial content addition in the last diff link dated 18 February 2015, a group of obvious sockpuppets appeared. MelissaHebert created on 21 February 2015, PortugueseManofPeace created on 21 February 2015, Akafeatfausty created on 22 February 2015, Shazam puta created on 23 February 2015. Their stated goal was to stop my efforts of improving finance and HFT related articles. "Kristina451 should be spending his/her doggedness, reference-checking skills and wit towards the betterment of other Wikipedia articles".[24] I got severely wikihounded and edit-warred by these socks. For example, I made some fairly uncontroversial changes to the Flash Boys article. Basically just reference formatting, see my edit summaries.[25][26][27][28][29][30] All reverted three times by the disruptive sock.[31][32][33] These attacks obviously skewed the appearance of my recent edits.
As stated above in the discussion with the blocking admin, I was very careful to not violate WP:OUTING. The oversighter who for whatever reason hid edits did not block me. Instead, I got blocked indefinitely several hours later by an admin who was not able to see them. The admin said he blocked "based on a sample survey of the last 100 edits" for the alternative reason of WP:NOTHERE.[34] I perceive this as an unfair block with an unjustified reason. After all, the suspected sockmaster and the group of socks were able to split their editing history. I have only one account. Kristina451 (talk) 10:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Where did you get the information that was oversighted? If it was from a WHOIS look-up then ok, but otherwise, it would be considered a violation of policy. PhilKnight (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.
Kristina451 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Yes, the information that was oversighted was copied from the WHOIS look-up. Kristina451 (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Based on the additional information below, I am satisfied that this user may indeed have found the material in question via a WHOIS lookup and/or similar publicly available sources. I strongly advise this user to let go of the COI issue, leave it to others to handle, and concentrate on editing; note that the Wikipedia "no outing" policy takes precedence over COI concerns. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 14:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kristina451: I am an Oversighter and have reviewed the suppressed material at User talk:198.0.163.1 (as well as here on your own talk page) which appears to be the basis for the "outing" allegations. I am not going to reveal all the details of what I saw, and I strongly advise you not to do so either as part of this discussion.
I am perplexed because when I did a WHOIS lookup of the IP address in question, I did not see all of the information which you posted. In particular, you mentioned a city and state which I did not find in the WHOIS information. Without repeating this city/state information, can you explain where you got this info?
Additionally, I tried another public IP lookup tool (ipaddress.com), and when I did a lookup there, the city shown for this IP address was not the same as the city you reported in your now-suppressed material. Again, I am confused as to where you got the city information you posted; I am still open to believing that you may have got it from a publicly accessible source, but I must remain skeptical unless you can confirm what that source is. Again, for purposes of this discussion, it is essential that you do not repeat the information in question here and now. Awaiting your reply. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Richwales: Thank you for thoroughly looking into this. The short answer is the content of the WHOIS lookup was modified a few days after I posted the information. However, one can still find the city/state information elsewhere. If you go to the first page you mentioned (IP user talk), at the bottom are two links named "Geolocate (Alternate)". Both links are currently displaying the same city/state. These would be two publicly accessible sources already linked at the IP's user page. Kristina451 (talk) 11:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. I see what you're saying, and on this basis I'm going to go ahead and unblock you. As for your concerns about a possible COI on the part of another editor, I need to advise you not to pursue this matter further, but instead to allow other people to do so as they consider appropriate. Our current policy on handling conflicts of interest says that "When investigating COI editing, the policy against harassment takes precedence and requires that Wikipedians must take care not to reveal the identity of editors against their wishes." (See WP:OUTING, and also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Avoid outing.) There do exist ways of dealing with these situations, but it is preferable to have qualified people deal with them off-wiki, or (if necessary) to simply drop the COI concern. In order to prevent further misunderstanding at this time, you should concentrate on editing from this point on; please do not pursue your COI worries any further at this time. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 14:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You handled a difficult unblock case, thanks for that. I will respect your concerns and not pursue the COI issue on-wiki. Kristina451 (talk) 21:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please avoid even the appearance of edit warring
[edit]
Hi. I noticed two of your recent edits to the article on Two Sigma Investments — here and here — in which you persisted in inserting material into the article even though it was clear that other editors disagreed.
Please keep in mind that Wikipedia's policy against edit warring applies even in cases where someone is "right", or where they are convinced they are right and other editors are wrong.
Given your overall editing history, I would very strongly encourage you to stay as far away as possible from anything that might even look like edit warring. If you do have a genuine disagreement with someone over the content of an article — and if it is evident that one or more other editors object to changes you feel are proper — you need to cultivate a mindset where you will take any such disagreements to the article's talk page, or to some other forum for dispute resolution where appropriate.
Additionally, I would advise you to be extremely careful in any situation where you believe another editor is acting in bad faith. Even if it's not strictly and specifically a question of "conflict of interest" — the issue that most recently got you into trouble — it's probably better for you if you give everyone the benefit of the doubt, assume they are honestly trying to improve an article (just as one hopes you are), and if there really are instances of disruptive / bad-faith editing, let others take care of the problem. Rest assured that more people than just you are keeping an eye on these various "high frequency trading" articles, and if there really is a problem, you don't need to be the one to report it; others will do so. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 20:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If we were following WP:BRD, the second IP removing the content would have had to take it to the talk page. Also, few editors are watching these articles, and very few are scrutinizing seemingly good edits. For example, this remained for over four months before I corrected it. The next time I will ask you how to proceed. Kristina451 (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Richwales: Here we are, see the edits of the two IPs [35] and [36]. The interlaced edit timestamps within 11 minutes suggest both IPs were operated by the same person and are proxies/socks. Of the edits so far, a few are trivial like replacing a word with its synonym. Most are disruptive, like modifying a direct quote from the source to nonsense. Please advise. Kristina451 (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Richwales: Next round of unconstructive edits by random IPs, looks like a proxy service. Even if not familiar with HFT related topics, one can still see that both citations in the paragraph modified [37] are clearly about HFT front running, and there is nothing about GPUs in sources about the Barclays lawsuit [38]. Kristina451 (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why keep reverting my GPU edit
[edit]
from april start you are just go after what i wrote in ! you add nothing but just keep go after me for GPU, not like you own the article? pls stop 120.137.174.133 (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You inserted "from using GPUs" into a sentence about an allegation of a lawsuit. There are no sources that the lawsuit has anything to do with GPUs. Kristina451 (talk) 12:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
i see your link it is saying `These systems and strategies typically seek liquidity among open and closed trading venues, such as other alternative trading systems. As such, they are particularly useful for GPU-based algorithmic strategies. `??? what lawsuit are you talking about.
edit warring
[edit]
you give me this for no reason i can say back to you, why you remove my edit without addresing my concerns?? I already add reference and on your talk page and on article page i have more evidence

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on front running. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.

Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. Kristina451 (talk) 12:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.137.174.133 (talk) [reply]
Mutual understanding
[edit]

Resolved. Sophie.grothendieck (talk) 13:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CC: Jalexander-WMF, PhilKnight, NativeForeigner
Kristina451, I think we started on the wrong footing and formed too many misunderstandings along the way.
Before the situation escalates further, I want to see if there's anything I can do to clear our misunderstandings and resolve our conflict with you on good terms.

Not one of your enemies
[edit]

I just noticed the latest edit dispute you're having and you brought up the SPI again on AN [39] as though I'm responsible for your dispute. I'm sorry that you're going through these issues but I'm not responsible for your plight, OK?
I don't know what's going to make you trust me but consider the facts:

1. Rather than making a conspiratorial interpretation of the CU's conclusion on the SPI, can't you accept the more probable conclusion that I really have nothing to do with your disputes?

2. If you look at my edit history, I've not had the slightest interest in finance-related articles since Sep 2014.

COI
[edit]

I want to give you a full picture that may be missing from your perspective. Brad and his colleagues have stepped away from many of their views and I have long since made peace with them. We have many industry friends in common and we respect the progress they've made for the ATS industry.
I've stepped away from this such a long time ago. If you still feel that my edits on IEX were unreasonable, I'm happy to have a civil dialogue with you about electronic trading and see where we can establish common ground.

From my angle
[edit]

You have to agree your choice of initial username; the subsequent times you've attacked me or outed me against my wishes; or the subtle hints you're dropping about how you're stalking my employer and colleagues, are distasteful and would genuinely upset anybody.

Moving on
[edit]

I'm willing to let go of all that and accept that you might have done everything in the heat of the moment and had no malicious intent.
I apologize that our encounter has made you such an unhappy person. I really wish we hadn't created all this animosity. We could have done a lot more if we put our efforts together in earnest.
As for your other detractors, I honestly think you should work it out with them through WP:RFP but perhaps you should also take a more neutral tone towards electronic trading firms.
I'm reaching out to make peace. I hope this helps you let go of your grudge against my employer and me. Let's move on?
Sophie.grothendieck (talk) 22:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you have in mind when saying "before the situation escalates further"? Is that an allusion to the two legal threats you have made against me and only partly retracted? [40] Kristina451 (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have in mind a peaceful resolution. I'm offering a handshake to put this whole episode behind us. Sophie.grothendieck (talk) 00:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response about SPI
[edit]

You managed to derail the SPI with your personal attacks. You also tricked an admin into blocking me during the investigation, by posing as a poor little female employee at the AN, which you clearly are not (last link where you also made the legal threats). It is unfortunate that the policies of this site allow you to portray yourself in an untrue way, while I may not set the record straight or else get sanctioned for "outing".
CU results as in your SPI usually open the behavioral investigation. This did not seem to happen in your case. The closing admin went by the CU's comment of "editing within the relative confines of the sockpuppetry policy" (direct quote) and only handled the CU-confirmed accounts. The admin wondered about the SPI being filed in bad faith because "the filer has since been indef'ed as WP:NOTTHERE". You succeeded in derailing the investigation, but this hardly clears you from using the 30 socks listed and over a dozen since then, not yet reported.

Response about "outing"
[edit]

What actually happened was that you have made false claims about your conflict of interest when you denied being involved in high-frequency trading. According to this WP:RS, HFT is "an industry besieged by accusations that it cheats slower investors." [41] I agreed not to pursue this issue on-wiki, so it has to suffice to say that there is an earlier section on this page starting with "conflict of interest". As mentioned, the policies of this site allow you to make these false claims, while I may not correct them.

Moving on
[edit]

You have made your case, now I have made mine. If you are still interested in your proposal, my terms are to 1. not lie and 2. not sock. Regardless of how you proceed, you should consider that despite your position or what you may have achieved, the world does not revolve around you and not everything I say or do is directed at you. It has been a while since I got here, and I developed a genuine interest to improve some articles I care about. Kristina451 (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you stop harassing us, you won't be hearing from us.

Regarding COI-related disclosures and your accusations of dishonesty, I can see why you feel that way. I believe this was the source of your misunderstanding and recommend you read it again. My employer does not meet the criteria or definition of a "HFT" firm - with emphasis - that you provided. [42] Circumstantially, my edits to the IEX article were intended to prune down on the promotional material and factual inaccuracies [43], which unfortunately would be one-sided against IEX and could have been misconstrued as COI. If this explanation does not suffice, you can elevate this to WP:AC and I can furnish privately via WP:OTRS that various SROs, news agencies and academic researchers, have identified my employer as a good advocate for market reform and fairness, and my work affiliation does not constitute a COI.

As for your conflicts, I should say the same that you should not jump to the conclusion that I'm the only plausible source of opposition to your edits. I recommend you take it to WP:RFP if you have an issue with non-bona fide editors. Moreover, if you have a genuine interest to improve the articles, WP provides several means for you to look for a neutral third-party to mediate the differences. The vetting process for contested material is slow, it requires patience and you should not take it upon yourself to judge people.

Which brings me to your dissatisfaction with getting blocked. It would be hypocritical for me to criticize you for impatience since I did request the admins to look into your activity without first hearing you out. But I remind you that on separate occasions, you dragged me into ANI [44] and SPI [45] first and attempted to out me against my wishes despite prior warning. In both occasions I wasn't even active on WP or aware of it until several days later. [46] Put yourself in my shoes.

Regarding deception, you should be aware that I am equally cognizant of and subject to WP's limitations and have given you the benefit of the doubt on matters outside WP's scope. (Example [47]: Unless you are registered with a regulatory organization, e.g. FINRA, NFA, for your association with (generally) a securities broker-dealer, investment advisor, FCM, introducing broker, bank or insurance company, and to perform functions associated with trading or the sales of securities, it would be deceptive and, in certain cases, even fraudulent to claim to be a professional trader.)

For the above reasons, your "terms" are not what's preventing us from closing this chapter. We may not have come to full agreement but it seems that we are at an equilibrium state of being equally weary of this. I remind you that if you stop harassing us, you won't be hearing from us, and wish you good luck with your future endeavors on WP.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mkb764920
[edit]
Hi Kristina, I just indeffed Mkb764920 as a sock of PortugueseManofPeace. I also closed the discussion at ANI. Just one point of clarification. Mkb764920 did not create an account at ja-wiki. He visited ja-wiki, as he has visited multiple other wikis. Thus, his statement that he even had an account was a lie. Not the only one, either.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: Thank you so much for taking care of this! It's always great to see people willing to look into challenging cases and get them resolved.
Regarding the comments of 'Sophie.grothendieck': I know this person, in particular I know his personality quite well. I'm fully convinced he is the sockmaster and can elaborate on that. I believe technical evidence wouldn't be decisive here, yet IPs of both 'Sophie.grothendieck' and 'PortugueseManofPeace' were shown to geolocate to the same 100k inhabitants city. In his ANI comments, PortugueseManofPeace was fully aware of all the previous conflicts I had with Sophie.grothendieck. PortugueseManofPeace even seemed to have noticed a typo in the copy-pasted name of Sophie.grothendieck's HFT firm. There is much more behavioral evidence that would take me a while to collect. I also made comments about the SPI in the above section here on my talk page.
Can I suggest to not merge the cases? I'm willing to give the issue a rest for now, but if the person continues his socking, it will have to be properly brought up again. Thanks. Kristina451 (talk) 11:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I've already suggested above, you shouldn't jump to the conclusion that I'm responsible for your detractors. I find the situation curious too, but reanimating 9 month old feuds is not my modus operandi. I thank Bbb23 for absolving me and trust you will respect the joint conclusion of the SPI clerk and 2 CUs.
Since you're giving this issue a rest, I presume you won't be harassing us any further and I can go back to saying that we will overlook your past transgressions for now and call it a peaceful settlement between us. I politely (lest you mistake this as a threat again) ask that you respect the privacy of my colleagues and stop stalking them or documenting their personal lives, as you claim to be doing.
I give you the benefit of the doubt that you may have developed, or will develop, a genuine interest in creating encyclopedic content and hope you can see that others share that same agenda.
As such, I wish you a good weekend ahead of you and best of luck with your future editing. Sophie.grothendieck (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds more sensible this time. As we seem to have put the conflicts behind us, there's a minor thing left. It pertains to shall we say a collateral issue. Would you support that I ask the responsible admin for a review of my article ban? Other editors questioned the sourcing of the broker priority section, and I have ideas for more improvements and updates. I also think the article's talk page would benefit from setting up archiving. Good weekend to you, too. Kristina451 (talk) 18:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to see this outcome. While I feel your last few edits were somewhat concerning, I can sympathize that they were perhaps made under the duress that some persons were trying to over-embellish the firms that they are affiliated with. Should your article ban be lifted, I suggest you try to establish common ground with these persons and adopt a more objective/neutral tone in the future. With that, I'm willing to make this leap of faith and appeal to the admin on your behalf to lift your article ban. In the same spirit, I hope you review your opinion that I was acting out of a COI; I was not present at that time to defend myself and feel that my article ban was wrongful. [48]
@NativeForeigner: I'm sorry to trouble you again. As above, we think Kristina451 has turned, or will turn, over a new leaf about the IEX article and he has (implicitly) agreed not to pursue matters that had him blocked previously. Despite our past history, I believe that he is a capable editor and can make a positive contribution to WP. Now with our personal conflict resolved, he and I can cooperate in good faith to improve these articles. Would you consider lifting his article ban? Sophie.grothendieck (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support. To clarify on the link, it represents a required notice when starting a discussion at the COI noticeboard. In this case, the discussion was archived without a COIN consensus, and no sanctions were imposed. If you make article edits with this account, I think it would be with a level of accountability higher than usual here.
While some disputes were eventually resolved by CUs, I'm always happy to establish common ground in genuine disagreements over article content. I think I'm a lot more familiar with WP's policies and guidelines today than I was nine months ago. I'm looking forward to collaboratively working with other editors on this and other articles. Kristina451 (talk) 19:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
[edit]

The Barnstar of Diligence

I just had a chance to see what you've done to the high-speed trading article over the past several months, and was very impressed. I too get in trouble for trying to fight COI issues and it's good to see that your trouble was only temporary. EllenCT (talk) 21:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I wondered what would happen after my break from editing. It's nice to see good things here and appreciation for the efforts. Kristina451 (talk) 21:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom elections are now open!
[edit]
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Glossary - Dark Pools". Investopedia. Retrieved 2011-06-20.

[1]