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: Sun 12th February 2012, 11:45pm

[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

[tarantino]

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.)

You should get in touch with the president of Wikimedia Australia. He could probably help you out.

[HRIP7]

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.

Well, you've got to smirk just a little bit. About half of these Microgrants are going to people with a, let's say, intimate connection to Wikimedia UK.

I guess it's partly because they are – naturally – the ones who are best informed about the availability of these microgrants.

[radek]

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.)

You should get in touch with the president of Wikimedia Australia. He could probably help you out.

Whaaaa! John needs to quit Wikipedia and get himself cast in some action movies. He's definitely got the "evil James Bond villain" look going. Those eyes are just spooky.

[Cla68]

Well, you've got to smirk just a little bit. About half of these Microgrants are going to people with a, let's say, intimate connection to Wikimedia UK.

I guess it's partly because they are – naturally – the ones who are best informed about the availability of these microgrants.

The program is actually a good idea. For example, for a long time, I've wanted to expand this article, but the price of the most recent, complete book (in English) is $125, which gives me some pause.

[carbuncle]

[thekohser]

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, YES!

[carbuncle]

According to the minutes of the 11 February 2012 board meeting, Prioryman's improper microgrants were approved.

DECISION: The board approved the Titanic group of microgrants as a board decision.

[dogbiscuit]

According to the minutes of the 11 February 2012 board meeting, Prioryman's improper microgrants were approved.

DECISION: The board approved the Titanic group of microgrants as a board decision.

Along with this gem:

Openess and Transparency: (RB - carried forward)
In camera.

And Fae is clearly obsessed with Peter getting a few items on the agenda, with a nice bit of thought-crime policy being made.

[thekohser]

I think this is fairly comical:

Attendees

Present were:

Martin Poulter [MLP] (real name)
Chris Keating [CK] (real name)
Mike Peel [MP] (Minutes - support) (real name)
Jon Davies [JD] (real name)
Richard Symonds [RS] (Minutes - lead) (real name)
Roger Bamkin [RB] (Chair) (real name)
Andrew Turvey [AT] (real name)
Fæ [Fæ] (FAKE name)
Tom Dalton [TD] (Saturday only) (real name)
Steve Virgin [SV] (arrived late on Saturday) (real name)

[dogbiscuit]

I think this is fairly comical:

Attendees

Present were:

Martin Poulter [MLP] (real name)
Chris Keating [CK] (real name)
Mike Peel [MP] (Minutes - support) (real name)
Jon Davies [JD] (real name)
Richard Symonds [RS] (Minutes - lead) (real name)
Roger Bamkin [RB] (Chair) (real name)
Andrew Turvey [AT] (real name)
Fæ [Fæ] (FAKE name)
Tom Dalton [TD] (Saturday only) (real name)
Steve Virgin [SV] (arrived late on Saturday) (real name)

Hmm.

In the UK, names are fairly flexible things, you can legally call yourself what you like. To change your name, you can simply use a new name, although there are two techniques for formally changing your name, taking a statutory oath (where you swear a legal oath that you renounce your old name and will only be known by your new one, worked fine for me many years ago) or deed poll, which is a legal document.

What you should not do is use two names at the same time. If someone has a stage name, legally they either sign contracts under that name and have adopted that name, or they operate under their own name (e.g. Richard Starkey was the name for Ringo Starr's copyright claims). There should never be any attempt to evade identification (no I didn't sign that, that's not my name).

If you operate under different names then that is usually considered OK if there is no intent at deception, but in this case we have a real person who has real responsibilities in law and has already signed up to being a trustee under his real name is now presenting himself at a legally accountable meeting under a different name. The question is whether, if someone asks that organisation if Fae is Ashley (which is well known and admitted anyhow), will the organisation deny this? I doubt it can, legally, without getting into hot water.

Not a big deal of course, but very silly for someone old enough to know better.