The Diary of Mr O Options

[carbuncle]

I thought ChrisO/Prioryman/Helatrobus/etc's attempt to get me banned from WP was self-serving because of some unfinished business that came up in the ArbCom case involving Cirt. He knows I may get around to finishing it one day. Perhaps that wasn't the only reason.

He left this note on the talk page of MartinPoulter (T-C-L-K-R-D) :

You've got mail
Hi Martin, I'm wondering if you got my email? I'd be grateful for a chance to have a chat before the end of this week about my grant application(s), inter alia. Could you possibly drop me a line to let me know when might be convenient? Prioryman (talk) 00:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC

MartinPoulter is Martin Poulter, Wikimedia UK trustee. Poulter is deeply involved in the anti-Scientology movement, as was ChrisO.

[HRIP7]

I thought ChrisO/Prioryman/Helatrobus/etc's attempt to get me banned from WP was self-serving because of some unfinished business that came up in the ArbCom case involving Cirt. He knows I may get around to finishing it one day. Perhaps that wasn't the only reason.

He left this note on the talk page of MartinPoulter (T-C-L-K-R-D) :

You've got mail
Hi Martin, I'm wondering if you got my email? I'd be grateful for a chance to have a chat before the end of this week about my grant application(s), inter alia. Could you possibly drop me a line to let me know when might be convenient? Prioryman (talk) 00:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC

MartinPoulter is Martin Poulter, Wikimedia UK trustee. Poulter is deeply involved in the anti-Scientology movement, as was ChrisO.

Any Wikimedia UK grant applications should show up here.

[carbuncle]

Any Wikimedia UK grant applications should show up here.

I guess that doesn't apply to "microgrants", which are by definition "grants of between £5 and £250 that help improve or facilitate your editing or outreach activities on any Wikimedia project". Restricted to WMUK members, of course.

Here is the first of ChrisO's microgrant applications: "Microgrants/RMS Titanic research in England". And here is the second: Microgrants/RMS Titanic research in Northern Ireland.

User:Tango pointed out the obvious:

These two proposals (and I think they are sufficiently related, being by the same person and for the same purpose, that they should be treated as one proposal) come to £375. The limit for a microgrant is £250, so this would need to be treated a regular grant rather than a microgrant.

User:MartinPoulter replied:

I disagree strongly with aggregating the applications. The UK-based one is requesting a small amount of money to allow a volunteer with an excellent track record to improve high-impact encyclopedic content on Wikipedia and Commons in a specified and positive way. I think it would be a no-brainer to approve on its own. By insisting it is aggregated with the other application, we are in effect penalising it. The two are related in that the target content to be improved is the same: they are independent activities. The NI application involves more money and more travel and so deserves more debate along the lines above, but let's consider it on its own merits. MartinPoulter 12:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Judging by the timestamps, it is possible that ChrisO and Poulter had already chatted by the time that comment was left.

[dogbiscuit]

Any Wikimedia UK grant applications should show up here.

I guess that doesn't apply to "microgrants", which are by definition "grants of between £5 and £250 that help improve or facilitate your editing or outreach activities on any Wikimedia project". Restricted to WMUK members, of course.

Here is the first of ChrisO's microgrant applications: "Microgrants/RMS Titanic research in England". And here is the second: Microgrants/RMS Titanic research in Northern Ireland.

User:Tango pointed out the obvious:

These two proposals (and I think they are sufficiently related, being by the same person and for the same purpose, that they should be treated as one proposal) come to £375. The limit for a microgrant is £250, so this would need to be treated a regular grant rather than a microgrant.

User:MartinPoulter replied:

I disagree strongly with aggregating the applications. The UK-based one is requesting a small amount of money to allow a volunteer with an excellent track record to improve high-impact encyclopedic content on Wikipedia and Commons in a specified and positive way. I think it would be a no-brainer to approve on its own. By insisting it is aggregated with the other application, we are in effect penalising it. The two are related in that the target content to be improved is the same: they are independent activities. The NI application involves more money and more travel and so deserves more debate along the lines above, but let's consider it on its own merits. MartinPoulter 12:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Judging by the timestamps, it is possible that ChrisO and Poulter had already chatted by the time that comment was left.

Classic example of how people inexperienced in running organisations fail to understand that they are running a charity organisation and this appears inappropriate therefore it is inappropriate. Splitting up an application to avoid a limit is such a classic mistake. It is well understood in the courts, for example the tax man has rehearsed most of the legal arguments. If they want to be seen as a corrupt organisation giving out money to mates without any checks and balances then carry on (Hasten the day ™ ), and we'll see what the Charity Commission make of it if they carry on like this.

[Cla68]

Any Wikimedia UK grant applications should show up here.

I guess that doesn't apply to "microgrants", which are by definition "grants of between £5 and £250 that help improve or facilitate your editing or outreach activities on any Wikimedia project". Restricted to WMUK members, of course.

Here is the first of ChrisO's microgrant applications: "Microgrants/RMS Titanic research in England". And here is the second: Microgrants/RMS Titanic research in Northern Ireland.

User:Tango pointed out the obvious:

These two proposals (and I think they are sufficiently related, being by the same person and for the same purpose, that they should be treated as one proposal) come to £375. The limit for a microgrant is £250, so this would need to be treated a regular grant rather than a microgrant.

User:MartinPoulter replied:

I disagree strongly with aggregating the applications. The UK-based one is requesting a small amount of money to allow a volunteer with an excellent track record to improve high-impact encyclopedic content on Wikipedia and Commons in a specified and positive way. I think it would be a no-brainer to approve on its own. By insisting it is aggregated with the other application, we are in effect penalising it. The two are related in that the target content to be improved is the same: they are independent activities. The NI application involves more money and more travel and so deserves more debate along the lines above, but let's consider it on its own merits. MartinPoulter 12:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Judging by the timestamps, it is possible that ChrisO and Poulter had already chatted by the time that comment was left.

Classic example of how people inexperienced in running organisations fail to understand that they are running a charity organisation and this appears inappropriate therefore it is inappropriate. Splitting up an application to avoid a limit is such a classic mistake. It is well understood in the courts, for example the tax man has rehearsed most of the legal arguments. If they want to be seen as a corrupt organisation giving out money to mates without any checks and balances then carry on (Hasten the day ™ ), and we'll see what the Charity Commission make of it if they carry on like this.

Another example is when a company places purchase limits on its corporate credit card accounts. If one of its purchase agents then uses the card to purchase 10 new computers for the office, but splits the buy into two purchases of five computers each to keep each under the purchase limit, the agent has violated company policy and will probably get fired if caught. If WMUK is operating this way, it needs some adult supervision or its going to get in big trouble.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Bielle]

[
Another example is when a company places purchase limits on its corporate credit card accounts. If one of its purchase agents then uses the card to purchase 10 new computers for the office, but splits the buy into two purchases of five computers each to keep each under the purchase limit, the agent has violated company policy and will probably get fired if caught. If WMUK is operating this way, it needs some adult supervision or its going to get in big trouble.
[/quote]

Whose money is being spent on these grants? (Just point me to the discussion if this has already been covered somewhere.) If this is WM or WP money, why is it only in the U.K. that editors get to travel on grant money for articles? (I'd love to go to Australia in January; I'm sure I could do something really good on sheep or cane toads or kangaroos.)

[dogbiscuit]

Another example is when a company places purchase limits on its corporate credit card accounts. If one of its purchase agents then uses the card to purchase 10 new computers for the office, but splits the buy into two purchases of five computers each to keep each under the purchase limit, the agent has violated company policy and will probably get fired if caught. If WMUK is operating this way, it needs some adult supervision or its going to get in big trouble.

Whose money is being spent on these grants? (Just point me to the discussion if this has already been covered somewhere.) If this is WM or WP money, why is it only in the U.K. that editors get to travel on grant money for articles? (I'd love to go to Australia in January; I'm sure I could do something really good on sheep or cane toads or kangaroos.)

Before we get too excited, we are talking piddling amounts of money. However, the basic issue is "look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves."

The first mistake is titling your grant application:

This is the first of two related microgrants I'm requesting