Wikiversity:Community Review/Wikimedia Ethics:Ethical Breaching Experiments/Where are the custodians?

Where are the Wikiversity admins?
This breaching project should have been deleted on sight and the editors involved banned as trolls. Where are the Wikiversity admins and why are they not protecting the integrity of this project? The fact that Jimbo had to intervene is a sad commentary on the diligence of the admins here. It is especially troubling to see that two of the main people defending the breaching project, darklama and SB Johnny, are administrators here. Ottava is to be commended for at least objecting to the most blatantly problematic aspects of this project. I don't understand her reluctance, however, to delete the rest of it, nor the lack of any action by the other admins here to put an end to such trolling. Kaldari 15:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My dear Kaldari! I counted to ten several times before writing these words. First: I want to point out a valuable resource. Read between the lines... Second: A nice little policy. Read between the lines again... Third: We (custodians and wikiversitans) were here all the time, but we also value discussion before deletion. Now if you have anything to say which moves the discussion further, say it. --Gbaor 16:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In case you weren't aware, I founded that valuable resource, so I'm well aware of it's existence. Are you also aware of the proper procedure for addressing ducks? Kaldari 16:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh my dear Kaldari! I told you to read between the lines! I was aware of the fact that you created the resource, and in fact this was the reason why I pointed it out. I didn't wanted to "call a spade a spade" because I thought you will understand... Now in plain English: First: For the person who brags with creating an anti-censorship project on WP you are just too in a hurry to delete! Now you believe in freedom of speech or not? Second: This was easy, just follow the link. "No personal attacks" is written right in the title... Clearer now, or I have to elaborate more? (Edit: Maybe elaborate more to be sure: I think the form how you stormed this page with your initial note was a personal attack.) Third: You had no problems with this one I hope... --Gbaor 16:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I for one don't see it as a project aimed at breaching anything. I do not support, condone, or endorse breaching anything without permission. I support people that wish to write about security matters because people do attempt and sometimes successfully succeed in circumventing security. The best way to improve security is to discuss security problems openly. I also do not consider the main editor a troll (WV:AGF). I was trying to work with the editor to clarify and make the project more appropriate for Wikiversity, before Jimbo came along and I have continued to do so even now. Some people seem rather quick to criticize, but unwilling to put time in to improve works. Sometimes discussion is needed with contributors to understand how best to improve works. -- dark lama  16:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So a project about Wikipedia breaching experiments that includes "how-to" and "planning" pages doesn't aim to breach anything? That's a bit hard to swallow. Kaldari 16:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the "how-to" page was intended to document how people that breached security managed to do so. When you know the means, methods, strategies and motivations holes in the system are that much easier to plug. I think the "planning" page was intended to be a scratch-pad for the main editor to write down their thoughts and plans for what to look into, or to document what planning if any do people do when they breach a system. The "planning" page is an example of an area where discussion with the contributor is still needed to understand how best to improve the page. I think the "how-to" page could use some of the same editing treatment that Wikimedia Ethics/The Ethics of Breaching Experiments had got. -- dark lama  17:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A five-year-old child can breach Wikipedia. It doesn't require scientific documentation of the methods involved. I really can't see any possible value to such a "scratch-pad", other than as a place to coordinate and plan efforts to breach Wikipedia. It certainly doesn't seem to be educational in any legitimate sense. Kaldari 17:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As a point of fact, I deleted all pages containing information about the experiment. The page that Jimbo left was simply an index page that had none of the information left. At the time, I left it because if Privatemusings wanted to discuss the ethics of the two documented cases of breaching (the ACID and McBride's recent case), then that could be discussed without encouraging socking or the violation of rules. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Clear position Darklama and Ottava, but I think it is no need to defend your good intentions. We all know you here at WV and SB Johny as well. Anyone who spent at least some minimal time around here knows that... And who came here to heavily criticize without any or little prior knowledge... Well... --Gbaor 16:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you deleted all of the pages except the index page, why did Jimbo have to delete Wikimedia Ethics/The Ethics of Breaching Experiments/planning? Had someone recreated it? Kaldari 17:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)