Talk:Judy Wilyman

Masters Thesis investigation

For an academic, an accusation of academic misconduct is a big deal, and would end a career if substantiated. Given this, I think it is important to note in the discussion of her Master's thesis that she was cleared. I respect that this means that we say it twice - once in the first line, and again as the outcome of the investigation at the end - but it is fairly serious, so it seems safer to be very clear that she was cleared as a result. - Bilby (talk) 04:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

@Gongwool:, can you clarify why you have such a major problem with mentioning that she was cleared both in the first line and as the conclusion of the investigation? I'm at a loss to understand why this is something that you have such strong feelings about. Given the severity of the accusation, my wish here is to make it clear to the reader that the investigation found nothing wrong, especially given that the investigation doesn't appear to have anything to do with the PhD controversy. - Bilby (talk) 05:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

No need to repeat stuff over and over again. I am at a loss why an Admin is so deeply involved in this topic over such a long time. Also this is very serious as the Uni is offering little transperancy and would appear to be questionable. It's about uni coverup not the person. Anyway I can't say anymore on talk as some use it as a pretext to set up minor editors and take frivolity to ani, bye. Gongwool (talk) 05:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to have to revert your addition. Saying that an investigation was dropped is not the same as saying that an investigation cleared the subject. In this case, one of the sources says "cleared" and the other says that the charges were "thrown out" - this is a stronger conclusion than simply dropping the investigation would be. - Bilby (talk) 05:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

@Gongwool:, is it really that big an issue for the article to state that at the end of the two month investigation Wilyman was cleared? I don't understand why you are fighting a simple, and important, concluding statement. It doesn't seem like a major concern - I'd just like for the article to be very clear that this unrelated nine year old investigation resulted in clearing Wilyman of academic misconduct. I don't understand why you find this an issue. Could you clarify the problem? I'm hoping to find a way forward, but I can't unless we hash this out. - Bilby (talk) 08:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I see a WP:OWN issue evolving here with admin editor Bilby. Obvious from above. 1.144.96.24 (talk) 22:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Why did you move the Masters Thesis out of the background section? It is unrelated to the doctoral thesis, which this is about, and seems more relevant in regard to the background of the doctorate. If there's a reason for the move I'm ok with it, but it did seem that "Background" was a better section, as it makes it clear if it is in there that it is not part of the current issue. - Bilby (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Masters thesis apology

@1.144.96.24:, I think that there might be some confusion. In regard to this revert, as I'm only using a very short direct quote, there isn't a copyright concern. The source was provided, but was "Wollongong University looks at releasing more Wilyman details" from The Australian. I'll wait a bit before putting it back, but hopefully that addresses your concerns. - Bilby (talk) 01:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Other editor raised concerns with this content. I see a WP:OWN issue evolving here with admin editor Bilby, as example above. Let's go with consensus and editors please refrain from adding it. 1.144.96.24 (talk) 22:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

That's ok, too, as there weren't any concerns raised with this in the past. I presume, then that you don't have a specific concern with the content? There are no problems with copyright or sourcing. - Bilby (talk) 22:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I also disagree with your proposal to add that material, the way you presented such was misleading and not neutral. 1.144.96.24 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

That's more useful. It was an exact quote from The Australian, though. How do you propose we word it? I'm happy to see it reworded, as the core point is that the university made the unusual step of apologizing to the student for the investigation. - Bilby (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Bilby you seem to push and push until you get your way. You have a WP:OWN breach as an Admin with this article. I do not support the addition of your text, you are adding "mills and boon" sympathy text and this is not a novel. Please refrain from WP:OWN activity. Uni's can be fallible and dodgy, they are not above misconduct. I do not support your proposal to add that content in any form. Regards. 1.144.96.24 (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

This makes it a bit difficult to find consensus. Why are you opposed to it? It seems very significant that the university apologized to the student for putting them through an academic misconduct investigation. I have not heard of this happening before, although I doubt that it is the only time it has happened. The Australian found it significant enough to be worth mentioning, Why do you feel that this is not worth covering? - Bilby (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, I've addressed all of the concerns you've raised - there isn't a copyright issue, it is sourced, etc. From what you said, I have to assume that your only complaint at the moment is that you don't like the text. That's not enough to justify leaving out sourced and potentially significant content. - Bilby (talk) 23:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

- I reject your proposed addition based on 'weight', 'own' and 'not reflected in source' policies. Your continual agenda pushing is reflected in WP:OWN policies. This is not personal bio article, it is about a Uni controversy where Uni is secretive and has created a lowering of academic standard question hanging over it. It is obvious you are an apologist for Wilyman and Uni's investigating themselves, and I will give you benefit of doubt that your only breaching WP:OWN rather than WP:COI. If you work for, or have worked for an Aus Uni then you will need to disclose that as a COI, also if you are a SocSc you will need to disclose that as COI. Regards, 1.144.96.24 (talk) 03:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

It is one brief sentence, so weight isn't an issue, and it is a direct quote from the source, so that also isn't a concern. Thank you. At this stage, I haven't seen a solid reason against including the text.

In regard to COI, no, I do not have a conflict of interest in regard to this article. - Bilby (talk) 03:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

OK thank you. It is then concluded you have a WP:OWN policy breach issue with your editing on Wilyman or Martin and UOW topics. Do as you wish as you are the Admin with unbounded powers on Wikipedia. No-one can stop your actions due to your seniority. 1.144.96.24 (talk) 03:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Not at all. I think you misunderstand the role of admins - in regard to content, administrators have no more say than anyone else. Which is why I've been trying to understand what the objections to content are - if we can understand what they are, we can come to consensus about how to proceed. But as far as I can tell from your responses, you are opposed to including it because it is sympathetic towards the subject, which isn't sufficient for leaving it out. - Bilby (talk) 04:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I reject your judgement of me and find your opinion insulting. What you want to include is out of context. Actually it infers collusion and coverup between Uni and a poor academic if nothing else, as it's written from such a sympathetic POV it's vomit/gag material of the highest unacademic order, It is damning. You continue to push WP:OWN of article with misconstrued sentences. Your bias on this UOW issue has been extremely telling in my short time here. I suggest as an admin you take a break from defending questionable Aus academia coming out of dodgy institutions, they can self bias implode themself without your assistance. Regards, 1.144.96.24 (talk) 05:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

My apologies - it seems I misread what you meant when you described it as "sympathy text" above. I'm not sure why you feel that it infers collusion - what it does seem to suggest is that the university felt that Wilyman should not have been put through the investigation, and therefore apologized. Hence my feeling that it is significant, as I have not previously seen note of a university apology to a student for an academic misconduct investigation.

At this stage I'll try and find an alternative way of wording it, as that seems to be the main issue. - Bilby (talk) 05:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Why did you revert the text:

According to The Australian, after the investigation cleared Wilyman the university apologised to her "for the ordeal".

The edit summary said that I misrepresented the source, but I can't see where that occurred. Could you clarify which part is misrepresenting The Australian? - Bilby (talk) 07:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I see that we're back to where we started [1]. Ok, The Australian wrote:

"The university originally declined to release more details about the investigation into the alleged academic misconduct relating to Dr Wilyman’s 2007 thesis on the federal government’s pertussis immunisation policy, and apologised to Dr Wilyman for the ordeal."

According to The Australian it was the university who apologised, not an unnamed individual in the university. I can't see in those sources any evidence that more people in the university spoke out against her in regard to the academic misconduct investigation at the time, and I can see The Australian claiming an official statement by the university as an institution. Returning to the text, why is the wording provided above incorrect? What is not in keeping with the source? - Bilby (talk) 07:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll give this a bit of time, but unless a problem is identified with the text that goes beyond not liking it, I'm very inclined to put it back. - Bilby (talk) 02:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why the WP Admin was so reluctant to identify who apologised to her in the newspaper. There's enough coverup going on at the Uni and Bilby is contributing to Uni's agenda of coverup who was invloved. Raper it now seems is the apologist. 1.144.96.24 (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The paper notes two apologies, which may or may not be from the same representative. The first time the author writes:

"The university originally declined to release more details about the investigation into the alleged academic misconduct relating to Dr Wilyman’s 2007 thesis on the federal government’s pertussis immunisation policy, and apologised to Dr Wilyman for the ordeal."

The second time we have:

"The outcomes of that investigation remain confidential, but the university’s deputy vice-chancellor (research) Judy Raper wrote to Dr Wilyman to say she was “sincerely sorry for this to have happened”."

It is possible that the two refer to the VC's letter, but it is also possible that there was more than one apology. Given that it isn't clear which is the case, assigning the apology to the university certainly covers one, and will probably cover both. If there is consensus to handle this differently I'm also ok with that. - Bilby (talk) 03:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

- as it is now it's factual, i vote leave it. this other which-ever proposal is interpretation not true to the citation, cant understand this. so my vote is leave it as it is, don't know why theres so much opinion and interpretation going on, that's all I have to offer, 03:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jewjoo (talk • contribs)

Peter Dingle

Is there any evidence that Dingle's involvement was significant? As far as I can tell, if he did supervise Wilyman, it was at a different university and was years before the thesis was released. Dingle is not mentioned in the final PhD, any of the sources that discussed the PhD, and given the change in university and the time frame involved, it isn't clear that this is the same thesis as was eventually released. Other than a single mention in a blog, is there anything to suggest that this is the same as the Wollongong doctorate, and that Dingle's involvement was significant in the eventual controversy? - Bilby (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Bilby, I would appreciate you please stop WP:STALKing or 'Wikihounding' my edit efforts on Vax topics. As this has been your M.O. for some time as I believe it reflects WP:HA and WP:FRINGE/PS on your part. Thank you in advance. Gongwool (talk) 00:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Could you address the issue above? - Bilby (talk) 01:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Today's Australian

Story shows that one of the two original PhD markers found that the thesis was of no value, and instead of addressing the issue the university simply substituted another credulous marker instead. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/third-marker-gave-ok-to-antivaccination-thesis-by-judy-wilyman/news-story/cbdf24fe7b4388f0fbf715354ebab8bb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.88.44 (talk) 21:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

This is standard practice in PhD marking in Australia. In situations where the two examiners disagree, a third (reserve) examiner is used to form a majority opinion. That said, it seems worth mentioning, so I've added it to the article. - Bilby (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Also this: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/judy-wilyman-shielded-from-critics-in-lowkey-conference-promotion/news-story/6fbd40ae181f6522c0e9d149271bb21f 82.21.88.44 (talk) 09:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

That's untrue. It is only standard practice to need a third examiner on occurrences of extremely poor academia. See the cite that the WP Admin has removed [2] which tells how Wilyman was in the minority of PhDs needing a third opinion to pass. Gongwool (talk) 02:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Australian Society for Immunology conference

I'm not sure how much weight we should be giving this, but I feel it is important to note why the University claimed not to wish to promote the conference. The wording as of now (after edit warring) reads:

In 2014, the university's media office refused a request to promote The Australian Society for Immunology conference in Wollongong, saying if it "will be discussing vaccinations, we should steer well clear of doing any publicity. We don't want to inflame any opponents of ... Judy Wilyman", wrote the UOW media officer.

However, In the article in The Australian, there are two lines relating to why they chose not to promote the conference:

"If Ronald or the conference will be discussing vaccinations, we should steer well clear of doing any publicity. We don’t want to inflame any opponents of ... Judy Wilyman"

and:

"A university spokesman told the HES the university was concerned about 'limiting the vicious and repeated attacks being directed ... towards a then student by those opposed to her participation in academic debate'."

I'm of the opinion that the second quote is clearly referring to Wilyman, although I gather @Gongwool: is saying that it might be referring to a different student. In deference to Gongwool, I'm happy to use the direct quote and not name anyone. In which case the wording in our article becomes:

In 2014, the university's media office refused a request to promote The Australian Society for Immunology conference in Wollongong, saying if it "will be discussing vaccinations, we should steer well clear of doing any publicity. We don't want to inflame any opponents of ... Judy Wilyman". According to the university, they were attempting to limit "the vicious and repeated attacks being directed ... towards a then student".

Writing it that way, we don't claim that the student facing "vicious and repeated attacks" was Wilyman, but we do make it clear that the university stated that their reason was to protect a student from those attacks. Without it we create the impression that it was only to avoid opposition to Wilyman, and that's not the full story as covered in the source. Accordingly, unless there is a clear reason as to why we shouldn't give the full account, I think we should include both quotes. - Bilby (talk) 01:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, there are two possibilities. One is that the university chose not to promote the conference because of opposition to Wilyman and because of repeated and vicious attacks made against her, in which case we need both quotes. The other is that the university chose not to promote the conference because of opposition to Wilyman and because of repeated and vicious attacks made against a different student, in which case we need both quotes. Either way, we need to give the full story. - Bilby (talk) 01:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Note the above discussion is Bilby talking back and forth with him/herself and considers this lone conversation as reaching consensus! lol... Gongwool (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@Gongwool: technically, I'm putting forward my case and asking for your thoughts. Would you be able to clarify why you don't want to include both quotes in the article? - Bilby (talk) 01:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

As there hasn't been an argument offered as to why we shouldn't include this in the article, and it has been a week, I'll add it back. Hopefully that won't prove too controversial. - Bilby (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Once again Bilby seems to have had a conversation with himself on talkpage and is very happy with the outcome. He once again says "we" (decided). So once again I guess he's referring to himself and one of the people mentioned in the article. Right-on Bilb! Gongwool (talk) 02:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Once again, by "we" I'm referring to the community. However, I waited a week for you to offer a valid reason for not including the University's explanation in the article. You said nothing. You still haven't said anything. Accordingly, I have to act on the assumption that you have no valid objection, and to move forward. If that's not the case, you might want to rethink the approach you have been using, and focus on the issue at hand rather than accusations of conflicts of interest. - Bilby (talk) 02:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

The quote that the admin keeps on replacing is vague sensationalist slander designed to insinuate that someone has physically or verbally been threatening Wilyman. i.e."According to the university, they were attempting to limit "the vicious and repeated attacks being directed ... towards a then student". Here's the facts again:

1. It does not refer to Wilyman so not justifiable to try to link via WP:OR policy.

2. Highly ambiguous. The Uni will not specify what "vicious attacks" are. The insinuation is that they are violence. But it is more likely the "attacks" refer to academic criticism that suggests the Uni or it's Supervisors are dim or dodgy academically, this is likely why the Uni is remaining vague on it's use of this word.

So not only is the comment vague and disingenuous, it is also disingenuous and vague for the admin to keep on putting it back in the article. Thus I will rightly remove this sensational line again. Ridiculous that I have to correct an admin on such basic concepts! Gongwool (talk) 03:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for providing something to work with.

"It does not refer to Wilyman so not justifiable to try to link via WP:OR policy."

No, it does not directly refer to Wilyman. In which case, we are being misleading by insinuating that the only reason why they chose not to promote the event is because of Wilyman, as if this doesn't refer to her, it is clear that there were other considerations as well. We should be clear about what those considerations were, rather than cherry picking one of the two reasons offered. Alternatively, if it is about Wilyman it is highly relevant.

"Highly ambiguous."

It is a direct quote. So yes, it is a slightly ambiguous quote, but the university has offered an ambiguous explanation, and we need to offer it as such. If anything, though, adding the second quote is making it less ambiguous, as the current quote only refers to "inflaming opponents" with no explanation as to why this would be a problem. The second quote is clearer as to why.

In regard to WP:OR - it is not original research to add a direct quote. It would be OR if we were to try and synthesis it, or use this to come to our own conclusions as to why they chose not to promote the conference. It is not OR to directly quote the only two reasons they have offered.

I remain at a bit of a loss. The university offered two quotes regarding not promoting the conference. Currently, the article mentions one. In the interests of being neutral and complete, it seems important to mention the second as well. - Bilby (talk)

Yawn, I'm tired of you Bilby. (ever wondered why so few editors want to engage you on Aus Uni's poor academia topics?) bye. Gongwool (talk) 04:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Given that you've added a claim that the examiners couldn't be under any threat if their names were released, it now seems important that we mention the university's view that a student connected with the vaccination debate (presumably Wilyman) had faced attacks in the past. I've put the additional claim back in the article, as now we have a greater reason to provide this context. - Bilby (talk) 06:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming that your addition is "presumably Wilyman" but you're not really sure, and it's needed there for something unrelated according to you. Top-shelf! No offence and apologies for my tone, but your standard of accuracy in addition of content to articles is rock-bottom dismal and just adds to making WP an inaccurate resource. Sorry but I have higher standards than just guestimation on such inaccurate slanderous comments. No wonder Aus Unis are in such a academic reputation void these days. Cheers. Bye. Gongwool (talk) 07:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I guess you missed all the comments above, from the first one onwards, where I've been very clear to acknowledge that it might not have been Wilyman, as unlikely as that may be, in deference to your view. And, once again, I need to warn you that your ongoing personal attacks are not the best way forward. - Bilby (talk) 07:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

You need to remove the untrue statement of "According to the university, they were attempting to limit "the vicious and repeated attacks being directed ... towards a then student".[20]" as the uni refuses to provide evidence that anyone attacked Wilyman, or said they were going to attack her. It's just lies and distraction and victim role-playing and I can't remove it due to settings on page, so can someone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.200.214.16 (talk) 07:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

We are not making a statement as to whether this is true or not. However, we are making the statement that the university offered this as an explanation as to why they were not promoting the conference. As that was a direct quote published by The Australian, I assume that they were accurate in how they reported the university's claim. - Bilby (talk) 07:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I apologise again profusely for any hurt I caused you Bilby. This in no way changes my opinion that I am more diligent in sustainable facts, needed for a platform such as WP, than you are, but I understand expressing such in my specific humour tone can cause offence, and for that I am sorry. Please accept my apology. Gongwool (talk) 07:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Admin Bilby's threat and tantrum

Unless Bilby gets his/her way this WP:OR interpretation of the last ambiguous quote, this bouncy admin has threatened "Or we kill the section as a whole" [3] - who's "we"?. Very concerning that an admin is throwing his/her weight around inappropriately -WP:bully. Bilby's bias is obvious, long-term and over the top on this topic, especially for an admin. Left wondering when Bilby says "we kill" as a threat, is Bilby's "we" referring to Bilby and someone mentioned in the article? - a WP:COI ? Go away Bilby you're giving WP a bad name. Gongwool (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to WP as a whole. :) My apologies - I tend to view editing as a community endeavor, and accordingly when talking about making changes I tend to refer to "us" as a community making those decisions. If we should include this in the article is a decision for consensus and the community, so when I say that perhaps we should remove it, I'm referring to a decision we would need to make as a community of editors. I shall try to be more careful in my wording. At any rate, can you raise any objections to including the second quote above? - Bilby (talk) 01:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

You seem a professional academic spindoctor employed to bore us to death. You bore me with your illogical obsession in defending with the recent worst examples of poor Australian academia and their own illogical spin. And you scare me with your stalking obsession of me. I keep on asking you to leave me alone but you keep demanding I engage, yes you're spooky. Please stop "ATTACK"ing me - to use a UOW phrase. Bye. Gongwool (talk) 04:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I assume that this means you won't be responding to my points above? As a suggestion, it isn't in anyone's interest for you to continue with the personal attacks, as they can lead to being blocked. I'd rather work with you to fix the article and to continue to develop it - your point of view is an important one. - Bilby (talk) 04:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)