WMUK membership fraud?

[Moonage Daydream]

They're on to us! WMUK fundraising manager Katherine Bavage posted the folllowing to the mailing list:

At the board meeting on Saturday a valid point was made that currently the verification process for membership applications doesn't really prove a barrier to fraudulent or duplicate applications.

I'd like to look at ways of improving this, so as we aim to expand our membership numbers we're also making sure fairness is enshrined in a checking process that means people can only have one vote.

If people pay their membership fee with Paypal, this isn't so much of a problem, as having a verified paypal account has already required this person to link their identity to their postal address - but we want to be as open as possible and so there will be people who give us 'a form and a fiver'.

What checking processes do we think would be acceptable without being invasive/onerous? At a basic level, we should be confirming that the applicant is the named person at the address given.

Please flag up concerns, suggestions for services or resources we can use, and so on. It may be that we can't completely eliminate the risk of fraudulent applications, but we can make it more difficult and provide a measure or reassurance that no individual has more power than any other by being able to vote twice etc .

[dogbiscuit]

They're on to us! WMUK fundraising manager Katherine Bavage posted the folllowing to the mailing list:

At the board meeting on Saturday a valid point was made that currently the verification process for membership applications doesn't really prove a barrier to fraudulent or duplicate applications.

I'd like to look at ways of improving this, so as we aim to expand our membership numbers we're also making sure fairness is enshrined in a checking process that means people can only have one vote.

If people pay their membership fee with Paypal, this isn't so much of a problem, as having a verified paypal account has already required this person to link their identity to their postal address - but we want to be as open as possible and so there will be people who give us 'a form and a fiver'.

What checking processes do we think would be acceptable without being invasive/onerous? At a basic level, we should be confirming that the applicant is the named person at the address given.

Please flag up concerns, suggestions for services or resources we can use, and so on. It may be that we can't completely eliminate the risk of fraudulent applications, but we can make it more difficult and provide a measure or reassurance that no individual has more power than any other by being able to vote twice etc .

I wasn't sure what to make of it. There are several ways of looking at it:

* we are trying to show we can act responsibly.

* we are so paranoid that we believe we have been under constant infiltration and all our mad decisions are due to Bad People getting onto our committee in disguise.

* Wikipedians are so paranoid about revealing their true identity (while having their hat pictures plastered all over the Internet) that real people find our processes so bizarre that we need to change them to keep in with the sane people who monitor us.

* You thought sock-puppets were just for editing.

* We have 93 members that resolve to PoetGuy.

[Anroth]

You forgot -

'Auditor is in and has noticed some glaring gaps that cant wait until his report is published'.

Or has the review not begun yet? There have a been a couple of WMUK stories that have appeared recently I would have expected to be picked up in a review.

[dogbiscuit]

And yet they don't spot they have employed a member of that hive of villainy that is Wikipediocracy? ChrisO will have some lovely lunchtime conversations when he drops by the office.

[tarantino]

Minutes for the meeting where this was discussed are now posted.

http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Minutes_17Nov12

[EricBarbour]

Minutes for the meeting where this was discussed are now posted.

http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Minutes_17Nov12

Jesus--they already argue and blather and dissemble, like a centuries-old bureaucracy. Complete with Fae habitually voting against anything that would increase transparency.

[thekohser]

Minutes for the meeting where this was discussed are now posted.

http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Minutes_17Nov12

Jesus--they already argue and blather and dissemble, like a centuries-old bureaucracy. Complete with Fae habitually voting against anything that would increase transparency.

How was Fae able to comment without being present?

These are the minutes of the WMUK Board meeting that took place in London on Saturday 17th and Sunday 18th November 2012. The agenda is at Agenda 17Nov12.

Present:
Trustees: Chris Keating [CK] (Chair; both days)
Mike Peel [MP] (both days)
John Byrne [JB] (both days)
Doug Taylor [DT] (both days)
Saad Choudri [SC] (both days)

Staff: Jon Davies (both days)
Richard Symonds (both days)
Katherine Bavage (Saturday)
Stevie Benton (Saturday)
Daria Cybulska (Saturday)

Volunteers/observers: Keith Smith, Compass Partnership (Saturday)
Geoff Brigham, General Counsel of Wikimedia Foundation (part of Saturday)
Ed Saperia (part of Saturday)
James Knight (part of Saturday)
Thomas Dalton (both days)
Martin Poulter (both days)

[EricBarbour]

How was Fae able to comment without being present?

And just like a centuries-old bureaucracy, they keep terrible records.....

[Vigilant]

Ruh roh, raggy!

http://uk.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... ldid=31359

[thekohser]

Ruh roh, raggy!

http://uk.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... ldid=31359

Who is "Jon Davis"? Is anyone on the WMUK team able to spell?

[dogbiscuit]

Ruh roh, raggy!

http://uk.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... ldid=31359

Who is "Jon Davis"? Is anyone on the WMUK team able to spell?

Apparently not (though to be fair, Davis and Davies are common names and mixing them up is a common mistake - I would tend to assume that Davis rhymes with hiss and Davies rhymes with knees, but only written down it would be hard to remember which he was).

What is more amusing are the more and more convoluted schemes to come up with identification. I would have thought myself that if all that is required is a basic check, then a welcome letter with a code to phone or email in with would be more than sufficient for the volume of members they have. If people are going to screw around, then there are plenty of ways of doing this without any sophisticated scams. They just need to ensure that they have taken the basic precautions to demonstrate that any party seeking to mess about has done so deliberately.

Funnily enough, I guess what is in their minds is some Wikipediocracy hit on them, whereas where they are more exposed are from the likes of Prioryman who has discovered that socking pays dividends on Wikipedia and will be more tempted to do the same to influence WMUK.

[Anroth]

Minutes for the meeting where this was discussed are now posted.

http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Minutes_17Nov12

Jesus--they already argue and blather and dissemble, like a centuries-old bureaucracy. Complete with Fae habitually voting against anything that would increase transparency.

Can you point out the specifics? Because my reading of that is that Fae is voting FOR more transparancy. Voting for release of various documents, reports etc, marking them as public and so on.

If anything, it looks like everyone else wants to keep it all quiet.

RE the membership. What the glaring issue is that as a lot of their stuff is handled online/email/mailing list, including charity-direction conversations, they have no real way of knowing that someone isnt vote-stacking. I would have picked up on this except I assumed they already had some form of identifying members. 'Heres my money and name/email address' isnt enough to confirm any identity.

The simplest way of course would just to *require* all membership dues are paid by either direct debit or debit/credit card payment. As they require a name linked to a bank account, thats enough ID for 99% of all identification purposes.

-edit- Oh ha, just read the mailing list conversation. Talk about over-thinking it, clueless numpties. They should call a call centre for a mobile or TV contract and see how little is actually needed. The pointless conversations about under-18's are silly as well. A)you can get debit cards under 18, b)anyone young enough to have no ID at all and not leave a paper trail can be covered by a standard stat declaration from the parent that they are who they say they are.

[dogbiscuit]

Minutes for the meeting where this was discussed are now posted.

http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Minutes_17Nov12

Jesus--they already argue and blather and dissemble, like a centuries-old bureaucracy. Complete with Fae habitually voting against anything that would increase transparency.

Can you point out the specifics? Because my reading of that is that Fae is voting FOR more transparancy. Voting for release of various documents, reports etc, marking them as public and so on.

If anything, it looks like everyone else wants to keep it all quiet.

I haven't gone back to check his voting, but my overriding impression also is that Fae is being an amazing pain in the butt, demanding openness and transparency. I wonder if Fae has been a cunning sock of Andreas!!??

[lilburne]

Funnily enough, I guess what is in their minds is some Wikipediocracy hit on them, whereas where they are more exposed are from the likes of Prioryman who has discovered that socking pays dividends on Wikipedia and will be more tempted to do the same to influence WMUK.

When Militant were ousted from the Labour Party a number of new recruits were drafted in. These came from the Sikh Temples and the Unions. All genuine individual members, all with a single purpose to vote out the militant members from the committees.

[Anroth]

Well I did suggest that if all the UK members of here were to join WMUK that they could probably get rid/get someone onto the board quite easily.

Shame most people here dont play well with others (In an organised joint-effort situation)

[cyofee]

I haven't gone back to check his voting, but my overriding impression also is that Fae is being an amazing pain in the butt, demanding openness and transparency. I wonder if Fae has been a cunning sock of Andreas!!??

He did support Andreas in his bid to join WMUK. It's all making sense now...

[SB_Johnny]

I haven't gone back to check his voting, but my overriding impression also is that Fae is being an amazing pain in the butt, demanding openness and transparency. I wonder if Fae has been a cunning sock of Andreas!!??

He did support Andreas in his bid to join WMUK. It's all making sense now...

Boy that would sure make for an interesting talk when the ladies find out. Hopefully Bamkin will catch that on video!

[EricBarbour]

Jesus--they already argue and blather and dissemble, like a centuries-old bureaucracy. Complete with Fae habitually voting against anything that would increase transparency.

Can you point out the specifics? Because my reading of that is that Fae is voting FOR more transparancy. Voting for release of various documents, reports etc, marking them as public and so on.
If anything, it looks like everyone else wants to keep it all quiet.

I haven't gone back to check his voting, but my overriding impression also is that Fae is being an amazing pain in the butt, demanding openness and transparency. I wonder if Fae has been a cunning sock of Andreas!!??

I don't get the impression that he's pushing for "actual transparency", so much as he is just trying to disrupt. Which would tend to cover things up in the long run, whilst he pushes for more political power within the organization (or "organization" to be more honest).

[Silent Editor]

Jesus--they already argue and blather and dissemble, like a centuries-old bureaucracy. Complete with Fae habitually voting against anything that would increase transparency.

Can you point out the specifics? Because my reading of that is that Fae is voting FOR more transparancy. Voting for release of various documents, reports etc, marking them as public and so on.
If anything, it looks like everyone else wants to keep it all quiet.

I haven't gone back to check his voting, but my overriding impression also is that Fae is being an amazing pain in the butt, demanding openness and transparency. I wonder if Fae has been a cunning sock of Andreas!!??

I don't get the impression that he's pushing for "actual transparency", so much as he is just trying to disrupt. Which would tend to cover things up in the long run, whilst he pushes for more political power within the organization (or "organization" to be more honest).

I think his push for power will be based on "I told you so!" if (when) WMUK comes crashing down.