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]

@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. — Richwales (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. — Richwales (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]

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. — Richwales (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]

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]