" 

 == RE:  discussion == 

 Hi, 

 I would like to discuss your responce to my responce. 

 I have copied your response to keep this discussion in one place. 

 This is a disappointing showing from the CVU Instructors. Achowat, if you would like to change the way that Wikipedia handles persistent vandalism from IPs – or otherwise encourage particular reforms to the way Wikipedia responds to vandalism – you should question whether it's appropriate for you to use your school as a soapbox, and consider whether or not there might be more appropriate venues for such campaigning. (Using the CVU to, in Mr little irish's words, ""shape the 'anti-vandals' of tomorrow"" is certainly playing the 'long game' for policy change.) You're blurring the line between education and advocacy; if you're going to do that, then the CVU pages and your invitations and instructions to your 'students' need to be much more forthright and explicit about what you're actually planning to do with and to them. 
 Mr little irish's first response to criticism, meanwhile, is to resort to namecalling. As far as I know, this is my first interaction with him on Wikipedia; in it he goes out of his way to be unpleasant in a petty way, and to proudly call attention to his childish behavior as emphatically as possible. This is conduct that I would have thought would immediately disqualify him from being an Instructor, as a brittle and bullying temperament is exactly the opposite of what the CVU Academy purports to teach. Unfortunately, instead of taking steps to keep the CVU's house in order, Achowat chooses to entirely ignore the misconduct in this thread, and continues to carry on a cheery chat about boozing and football with Mr little irish (MLI) in the next discussion down the page. Condoning MLI's behavior this way – whether because he's a CVU supporter and insider, or because abuse directed at experienced editors is somehow more acceptable than abuse of newbies – is a sad double standard and sets an ugly example for his 'Students' to follow. 
 MLI then goes on to impugn the intelligence of a student, suggesting that ""Chip could get confused as to who to speak to now"". No, I don't think so, because Chip is allowed to talk to any damn person he wants. If Chip123456 – or any other editor – sees something that he is curious about or doesn't fully understand, he should always feel free to speak up. Every Wikipedia editor is expected to make a good-faith effort to respond to patient, polite inquiries on their talk pages. Any editor – including Chip, admin or not – can start and participate in discussions on the Administrators' noticeboard. Any editor can ask or answer a question at the Help desk. While there is already something of a disconnect between declaring one is ""not an authority"" and at the same time explicitly creating an Instructor-Student relationship, the nature of the problem is thrown into stark relief once an Instructor admits his belief that it would be confusing for the 'Student' to speak to other editors. 
 For the sake of completeness, I'll mention that I thought Dan653's response was measured and reasonable. (And in response to bullet #3, the decision not to exclude my own opinions when talking about the overall unreliability of advice was indeed conscious and deliberately conspicuous.) On my ""contentious"" third paragraph, I'll simply ask – probably rhetorically – which parts are contentious because they're not true (or arguably so), and which parts are contentious simply because the CVU wishes they weren't true? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 3:48 pm, Today (UTC+1)  

 *In responce to the first highlighted section, that was my honest mistake, please accept my apologies, I didn't read your name properly and came up with TOAD, instead of TOAT. 
 *In responce to the second highlighted section, I have not gone out of my way to be unpleasant in a petty way, but to provide my own opinion on your opinion, as I stated at the end of my part of the paragraph. I thought the way you condesended about a project that you are not even involved in was a little 'high and mighty'. This is just how you have put yourself across in your own words. I may be interpreting them incorrectly, but that's how I see it. 
 *Third, brittle and bullying temperament? Could you point out there where you think I may be bullying? 
 *Finally, in regards to conversations me and Achowat have not in relation to CVU is at the discretion of me and Achowat, and as far as I'm aware, we're allowed to chat about anything in our own talk spaces. 

 Now, I did not once disagree with any points you had made before my responce, and I agree'd with both you and Achowat. I stated that Chip may get confused as he is a relatively new editor, who was getting mixed responses from editors. 

 Again, please accept my apologies in regards