I don't know, but I'm guessing by definition that people who are trying to commit fraud might not be put off by that, plus if we don't have effective checking mechanisms we're not going to be able to know and pursue action even if so. Still, any legal types on the list who can answer the question? Kat On 19 November 2012 13:27, Gordon Joly <gordon.joly(a)pobox.com> wrote: -- *Katherine Bavage * *Fundraising Manager * *Wikimedia UK* +44 20 7065 0949 Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*

Hey Harry, I'm not sure if ii) *is* easier. Compare the work of verifying members before every AGM and EGM or merely at the point of joining. We don't really have formal check on membership at the moment - no applicant is asked to prove their residency at their address of that they have provided their real name. In terms of Wikimedia U.K. as a company it is required to keep an accurate list of members addresses and names ( http://www.companylawsolutions.co.uk/topics/statutory_registers.shtml#Ins) (apologies if you knew that already) I don't think it's *required* to check validity of address. While, the legal view (on whether in creating a false membership invalidates any voting rights) will be informative, I'm still not seeing how that is material unless we have a mechanism for ID'ing false applications. Therefore, I still think the key question is one of 'How should we check those members' names and addresses are valid' in a way that isn't too invasive, expensive or time consuming. No suggestions yet... Kat On 19 November 2012 15:19, Harry Burt <harryaburt(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- *Katherine Bavage * *Fundraising Manager * *Wikimedia UK* +44 20 7065 0949 Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*

On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Katherine Bavage < katherine.bavage(a)wikimedia.org.uk&gt; wrote: It depends, I suppose, on what kind of check you have in mind. I was imagining "show us proof of identity" (with a large burden on the information supplier) rather than a cheap automated check. By "cheap" I also mean monetarily: it's probably not a good use of WMUK money verifying the addresses of non-voting members if WMUK is not legally obliged to. Harry (User:Jarry1250)

On 20/11/12 10:37, Katherine Bavage wrote: Indeed. Even Trustees get a vote! Members' voting rights are enshrined into the (proforma) constitutions of bodies such as Industrial and Provident Societies (mutual societies). http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1965/12/contents Gordo

On 20/11/2012 10:37, Katherine Bavage wrote: Doing so would be based on the assumption that all perspective member is a) have a photo ID and b) old enough to have an utility bill in their name / on the electoral roll. KTC -- Experience is a good school but the fees are high. - Heinrich Heine

On 20/11/12 11:42, Thomas Morton wrote: This is all a bit exclusive. Widening membership should not be down PayPal or electoral roll or having a bank account (since this would exclude people aged 17 years old and under). Well, yes, but living in a world where many editors hide their identity.... Gordo

Sorry to chime in from outside, but why is checking the address so important? How many people in the UK do not have some form of government ID (passport, drivers licence, etc., I know the UK is not big on ID cards)? By the way, Couchsurfing has a friendly way of verifying addresses: they send you a postcard (that can be recycled as stickers) with a unique code that you need to type in on the website. Best regards, Bence On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Thomas Dalton &lt;thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote;wrote: -- Damokos Bence ügyvezető alelnök, Wikimédia Magyarország http://wikimedia.hu <http://wiki.media.hu/>

On 20/11/12 12:35, Thomas Dalton wrote: Aha. Seems there are accounts for the 11 to 15 age range (Barclays, Santander, etc) But I think membership should be open to all..... id checks will exclude some. Gordo

On 20 November 2012 10:37, Katherine Bavage &lt;katherine.bavage(a)wikimedia.org.uk&gt; wrote: I think Harry might have been distinguishing between members that do vote and members that don't, rather than members than *can* vote. Just like insurance companies only check your details when you try to make a claim, we could just check when people try to vote. Electoral roll is no good - plenty of people aren't registered to vote. Utility bills only help if you are the one that pays them. People that live with their parents, or live in student halls, or simply have everything in the name of their spouse, aren't going to have one. I'm not sure Paypal does anything particularly thorough when it verifies your account, and people tend to only verify their accounts if they are selling things through paypal. I suggested a credit scoring agency because it's the only thing I can really think of that is practical. It will check your details in lots of different ways, so is likely to be able to find something for everyone (some minors may have a problem - they would need to have a bank account in their own name or something in order to be in the database). I have no idea what it would cost, though.

We can easily come up with all sorts of ways to make membership a massive pain in the arse. But what was the threat model again? And what's accepted practice - how do other UK charities deal with said threat model? - d.

On 20/11/12 13:34, David Gerard wrote: Sounds like something for the Audit Committee. Gordo

On 20 November 2012 13:53, Martin Poulter &lt;infobomb(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: The case of such a thing that springs to mind is one you should certainly know: NIMH vs Scientology, in the sixties. The NIHM prevailed because the court ruled the board had, per the rules, the absolute right to exclude anyone they wanted for any reason or none. (That the attempt was clearly a takeover probably helped.) Has there been case law since? - d.

On 20 November 2012 20:12, Chris Keating &lt;chriskeatingwiki(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Well, yes. Standard practice is actually not bothering. To be fair, it is literally true that we have seriously dedicated gibbering nutters who are out to fuck us up any way they possibly can; much more so than the run-of-the-mill small charity our size. But you're right that the very first thing to try is a larger, broader and more involved membership. - d.

Morning all, So, I'm sensing that while there is some acceptance that a bit more gatekeeping may be warranted, we don't want anything heavy handed, and that verifying identity prior to voting each time isn't practicable. How do we feel about Jon's suggestion of confirming address? I can easily set up a join process whereby: 1. Member indicates wanting to join by filling out application form (online or paper) 2. Office logs application on Civi CRM and sends potential member a postcard and sticker in an envelope. Postcard has our freepost address on once side, and bullet points on the other side briefly explaining: 1. The membership approval process (some new members aren't always clear on being approved and the delay until the next round of approvals by the board) 2. Signposting to our events page in the meantime 3. That returning the card is an effective declaration that their address and name as provided are genuine (and they will undertake to update us if this changes) 4. That if they have not applied for membership they should inform us of the error via email 3. Member receives postcard at genuine address if given. Enjoys sticker (yay) and drops postcard into the post. 4. Office receives postcard, and marks address as verified against membership record. The downside if this approach is we can't verify that a person's name is what they have declared it is. However, the upsides are having not only verified they live where they say they do, but this being at a minimal expense, and providing more information and an opportunity to engage them early in the process. Currently becoming a member can be a bit underwhelming. Also, I should add, I strongly agree with the idea that the best overall way to combat the problem is to have a larger, more active membership, complemented by staff, Trustees and volunteers to continue to be alert to any unusual patterns of recruitment or behaviour in a new crop of unknown volunteers. I think this approach will add a layer of security to that however. Katherine On 21 November 2012 08:19, Gordon Joly &lt;gordon.joly(a)pobox.com&gt; wrote: -- *Katherine Bavage * *Fundraising Manager * *Wikimedia UK* +44 20 7065 0949 Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*

On 22/11/12 12:05, Katherine Bavage wrote: Suppose a group with funds wish to influence a body. They pay for the membership fees (and a little on the side for goodwill). All these schemes will not uncover that scam. Gordo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_probability We get enough of that from the board, thanks Gordon.   Harry Mitchell http://enwp.org/User:HJ Phone: 024 7698 0977 Skype: harry_j_mitchell ________________________________ From: Gordon Joly &lt;gordon.joly(a)pobox.com&gt; To: wikimediauk-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 14:12 Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Verifying membership applications - Suggestions and comments On 22/11/12 12:05, Katherine Bavage wrote: Suppose a group with funds wish to influence a body. They pay for the membership fees (and a little on the side for goodwill). All these schemes will not uncover that scam. Gordo _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

How about doing it in a nice way? Sending a thank you LETTER (sorry trees) with a badge or sticker in and an 'if not received return to...label. AT least that would be some sort of verification. Perhaps a freepost confirmation postcard therein as a belt and braces? To be frank going from 320 to 260 members recently seems that our problem is quite the reverse. On 20 November 2012 14:27, Richard Symonds &lt;richard.symonds(a)wikimedia.org.uk > To reply to Harry's points: > >> (i) Should we enforce more checks on prospective members? > > Yes, although "enforce" is the wrong word. Perhaps "check that they are > real people who will support our objects and haven't given a fake address" > would be a better way of putting it. We have a duty to ensure that the > members of the charity are actual people, and not, for example, someone's > cats who have a vote in order to swing elections one way or another. > >> (ii) Should we enforce more checks on members before we let them vote at >> AGMs, whether in person or by proxy? > > No. Once a member, it's too late - you have the right to vote (even if > you're a cat, I suspect). Checks really need to be done before members are > approved. > > Richard Symonds > Wikimedia UK > 0207 065 0992 > > Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and > Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered > Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. > United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia > movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who > operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). > > *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control > over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.* > > > > On 19 November 2012 15:19, Harry Burt &lt;harryaburt(a)gmail.com> >> Aren't there really two points here: >> (i) Should we enforce more checks on prospective members? >> (ii) Should we enforce more checks on members before we let them vote at >> AGMs, whether in person or by proxy? >> >> I think the legal question is a good one. Are charities required to do >> neither/either/both? Legal issues aside, surely (ii) but not (i) is the >> easiest by quite a margin. >> >> Harry >> >> -- >> Harry Burt (User:Jarry1250) >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Katherine Bavage < >> katherine.bavage(a)wikimedia.org.uk>> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> 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 . >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> -- >>> *Katherine Bavage * >>> *Fundraising Manager * >>> *Wikimedia UK* >>> +44 20 7065 0949 >>> >>> Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and >>> Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered >>> Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. >>> United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia >>> movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who >>> operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). >>> >>> *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal >>> control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.* >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia UK mailing list >>> wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org >>> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l >>> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia UK mailing list >> wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org >> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l >> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia UK mailing list > wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org > > -- *Jon Davies - Chief Executive Wikimedia UK*. Mobile (0044) 7803 505 169 tweet @jonatreesdavies Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). Telephone (0044) 207 065 0990. Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk

Just a few thoughts in reply. Yep, I'm a member of several organisations including a political party, as of course will be some of our Trustees, and true, not all of them verify applications but rely on the caveat of kicking people out if caught doing something 'naughty'. I don't think the rationale should be that we do things the same way, it certainly doesn't hurt to discuss alternatives. I can assure you we're fairly 'real world' about this. The concern arose from the fact that under the current system, fraudulent membership is possible - there are no effective safeguards. Perhaps the Trustees will decide this is an acceptable risk. Verifying new membership applications are valid isn't our primary concern - the 20 page membership report submitted to the board that is entirely dedicated to better understanding what our members want, delivering that, and therefore expanding our membership through strategic recruitment underlines the priorities. Do have a read<http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_UK_Membership_Developme…df>, and feel free to add any thoughts on my talk page. Approaching other organisations - naturally that's something I'm already doing. I've asked the mailing list as well because many of it subscribers are concerned and interested parties when it comes to how the Chapter is run and I value their feedback on matters like this - good and bad. I'll certainly factor in the comments of respondents who aren't pro any checking such as yours in my feedback to Trustees. Kat On 22 November 2012 12:58, David Gerard &lt;dgerard(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- *Katherine Bavage * *Fundraising Manager * *Wikimedia UK* +44 20 7065 0949 Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*

On Nov 28, 2012 11:05 PM, "Andrew Turvey" &lt;andrewrturvey(a)googlemail.com&gt; wrote: their credit rating so I would strongly advise against that. Just to clarify, it wouldn't actually be a credit check. It would be using a credit agency's database to verify an identity. It wouldn't appear on a credit report as an attempt to get credit - it's a separate service designed for exactly this kind of thing.