User talk:Caustic Logic

2014
Happy New Year! I'm still a few hours shy here, but so what. We enter our third year of operations. :) --Caustic Logic (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC) (optioonal space to make the below a subset)


 * Happy New Year from the future! The 4 has already kicked out the 3 at google.de! :o) Best wishes, --CE (talk) 01:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, shit! I am drunk! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What a cruise! They were serving free champagne at the Skyview Bar on deck 10 until 5 am.
 * Anyway, Happy New Year! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You guys in the frozen North cruisin' around anyways. I partied right here, a lot to do. Not that far past 5 am still here, not too drunk yet or too far behinf schedule. A few more minutes of work left at least... then see ya again after about 8. --Caustic Logic (talk) 15:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

History Mode
This site has been running since June, 2012. That's a year and a half. We've kicked ass. --Caustic Logic (talk) 01:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

In recent months, signs are increasing that it was the anti-government conspiracy, not the Syrian government, that was "delaying the inevitable" this whole time. The government will remain. The cancer will be routed and subdued in time. That's my guess. The urgency of possible imminent war over the Ghouta allegations yielding to inspections and peace talks instead marked a point of transition, where both the urgency of discerning the truth was heightened and then the calm of realizing the rebels are done settled in. So in the last months my thinking of what's best and most urgent to do has changed and I'm thinking in a more relaxed, long-term, historical study mode. I vote for the site to stay up and active for another 18 months at least, and hope to keep developing different aspects. --Caustic Logic (talk) 01:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Did I mention I was a history major in college? I did manage to all but earn a BA degree before losing financial aid in a real blunder, and obviously never entered the profession in exchange for money, which I still have to work for. But anyway, here we are working the early part of an important historical record. To some extent that's always how I've thought of it, and more so now.

In that mode, I've been archiving things. The VDC regime forces database used to do searches by name and civilian/non-civilian status (yes, both are listed, because "regime forces" means something else). But since I started using it, a while back, they disabled those. That spurred me to start a big searchable file of all listed entries. In time this might be worth sharing here, probably in chuncks. So far I've got the first several weeks saved, mostly just the short entries listed on the front page. Opening and saving each entry's page was too time-consuming. More useful has been gathering LCC daily reports, into text documents covering two months each. I mostly save the text only, video links where I feel like pausing for that one. A lot of videos aren't there anymore. These go back to August 12, August 13 and some sporadic days are missing, but otherwise I have maybe half of 2011 and some of 2012 covered so far. These I've been citing lately, mostly for Homs Massacres. These can be shared in chunks, with some (Aug-Oct 2011, Nov-Dec 2011) perhaps ready soon. A final version might have all video links, but that's a lot of time on my end, so I can post working copies prior to that. Format, etc. to be decided in time. --Caustic Logic (talk) 01:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Malnourished victim
(Suggested material I later worked into this page) --Caustic Logic (talk) 08:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC) This was discussed somewhere: You can remove the comment if you move the link somewhere. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Child martyr Ibrahim Khalil result undernourishment Medmah the Sham 31 8 2013 – Mrkzmoadamia alsham
 * I'll keep it here for right now, but it desrves a page soon. I'm on this one, in extremely general but effective terms, detail analysis hardly needed. At an al-Akhbar article on the UN report (a great one - I see we have it included, good) I saw a comment by fellow wiki member Clay Claiborne, who shifted the subject to allegations of regime shelling that was starving more kids in Moadamiya, this time a baby girl "in danger of death."
 * Clay, these alleged baby-starving shells are off-topic emotive distractions here, and besides - babies get preference even under siege. If babies are starving and everyone else isn't, (are they? I only see scattered kids) look to the people immediately around that baby. One has a rebel activist video camera. Other activists explain the whole story and get suckers like you to push for NATO air cover, over these regime CW attacks and regime blockades.

Next step will be to get visuals of any non-starving rebel fighters who are running the place at the relebvant time, put the images side by side and ask why the fighters aren't sharing food with the kids. Was there a mercy embargo? Or do they just want more dead kids to guilt trip us with, in hopes we're not thinking straight (and most aren't). --Caustic Logic (talk) 08:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Half-way related (I think), check what Fisk writes about Moadamiyah and the operations of that night. --CE (talk) 11:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Definitely to note, more to the "chemical shelling" part we still didn't cover here yet. What's up with that? As for the shelling so bad even the babies are starving, here's the guys sent to meet the UN team on the 26th - Youtube. Everyone here seems leaner than average, actually, but that's probably a coincidence, other than about two pretty beefy guys by the door, and no one chubby. Not the best example I'm sure. For reference, the one Clay points to is this, difficult to watch, unnecessary (filmed on or before September 23). A little girl, I don'y know, a year or two old but bald like newborn? Poorly kept by someone, cellophane diaper, rebel doctor jabbing at her symptoms at length for our edification. She's breathing hard, looking hard, thinking hard, cooperating, tender all over but jabbed all over, not at death's door but within a few blocks of it. I sense no human compassion coming her way from the people in this room. Subjective I know, but I dare you to test that. --Caustic Logic (talk) 12:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

More sources on this: http://972mag.com/after-chemical-attack-damascus-suburbs-face-starvation/79851/ I left a comment in the Facebook pane. Curious if it come through. Also comments below, don't seem to have.

I didn't do more here tonight/this AM because I thought we were in read-only mode. I hear that's to happen soon and for most of the weekend as they get everything onto new servers and hopefully solve the overload problems (?) they've been having. Anyway, been assembling some assorted things offline. --Caustic Logic (talk) 14:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Pro-War Lefties
A thing I've been meaning to write on - self-described leftists and outright Communists and such who eagerly take almost exactly New York's position on Syria as if Marx himself would do the same. This when the target is besieged by fundamentalist and imperialist nations for standing with Iran (state-run central bank) in resistance to Israel, once allied to anti-Imperialist victim of imperialism Baathist Iraq (state bank), maintaining a strong Socialist leaning and the only Arab country (?) with a Communist party both allowed and doing well, placing second to Ba'ath in the May 2012 Peoples Assembly elections. And there are those who would tell us the anti-imperialist struggle is the one waged by Syria's youths with those bearded chins and shaved upper lips, and some of Libya's and Saud's rejects and Salfists from some 40 other countries, funneled and armed by Turkey and NATO, riled up by reactionary genocidal Gulf imams, its supposed leaders in Turkey recognized by the imperialist bloc, with Israeli air force help on occasion, and the al CIA-da cancer seeping into every slice made ... It's interesting to watch these people in action. --Caustic Logic (talk) 12:15, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Louis Proyect, an "unrepentant Marxist" has a guide for the perplexed on Syria, a list of guides he considers leftist who have penned convincing articles for the rebellion and against the regime. He derides "the Marxist purists who genuflect to Bashar al-Assad" and muses "How the “anti-imperialist” left can rally around a government capable of such depraved action is a mystery beyond comprehension." Capable of, accused of, same difference. One of his guides wrote:
 * Louis Proyect
 * The main actors so far have been educated youth and unemployed youth seeking access to modernity ... many of the people in the streets are what I would call lumpen proletariat ... The other component of this movement comes from the lower middle class, especially young unemployed university graduates. ... because they have to live with their parents ...

To be fair, that's from 2011, but Proyect cites it in late August 2013, and offers elsewhere some "dos and dont's" for "progressives" discussing the war and hoping to do so in his style. Included:
 * DON’T obsess over al-Qaeda, Islamist extremists, jihadists, etc. ... DON’T let genuine concerns with US imperialism, Israel, Saudi, etc make you look at pictures and videos of dead children and think conspiracy. Bashar is an authoritarian dictator...

... and probably did kill those kids and just leave them for rebels to find, again. After all, Proyect reminds us for context:
 * [Asad's] record of resistance is a bit sketchy. Just remember he collaborated with the US on things such as CIA renditions. Just because the CIA is training a few fighters in Jordan or some anonymous rebel leader is quoted in some Israeli paper doesn’t mean this isn’t a legitimate Syrian uprising against a brutal regime.

As for how he gets so smart about what's going on, I don't know. I can say he doesn't seem open to new information. Highlighting "the worst atrocity of the war" in al-Bayda and Baniyas, he blamed the regime based on what activists said. When I pointed out in a comment that the victims were government-loyalist Imam who had called for all rebels to be killed a month before he and so many innocents were killed instead. He simply deleted that and pretended it didn't exist. Seems he learned some things from Stalin, anyway. I saved the comment, will dig it up and post here later. --Caustic Logic (talk) 15:17, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Side-note on the CIA rendition assistance: mainly seems to be Maher Ahrar (WP). A Syrian-Canadian citizen, arrested on suspect intel as a possible AQ terrorist, sent by the United States to Syria instead of Canada, where he was held for a year, where the wikiperdia article says Arar "claims he was beaten for several hours and forced to falsely confess that he had attended an Al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan. “I was willing to do anything to stop the torture,” he says." With these forced confessions in hand, the article says, "the Syrian government later stated that Arar was "completely innocent." and "Syrian official Imad Moustapha stated that "We tried to find anything. We couldn’t". Syrian authorities also denied that they tortured Arar." --Caustic Logic (talk) 15:17, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I've been wanting to put together such a list for a while, but by now, one of the intended targets is a fellow member of this wiki. Any thoughts on the best way to take advantage of that dynamic for the greatest learning potential and the widest public good? --Caustic Logic (talk) 12:15, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Clay Claiborne

Threatening new editors
Hi Caustic Logic,

My name is Lynton from the ShoutWiki Customer Support Team. I dropped by your wiki in a random check for vandalism and spam, and came across this message that you left on a new editor's talk page.

I am quite concerned that this is your approach to wiki administration. Blocking should never be threatened to new editors who are yet to make any contributions to your wiki. You should be encouraging new editors and offering to show them 'around' and how to get started contributing. What you have done here (and I can only assume previously) is simply discourage or even scare off participation from new contributors.

You have chosen to start an open wiki here on ShoutWiki, and with that comes certain requirements for you to act in an open and collaborative manner. If you aren't able to uphold those ideals, then we may have to review the administration of this wiki, which is certainly not something that I would like to do.

I am keen to hear your thoughts on this matter. Please respond on my talk page so that I am notified.

Regards,

— Lynton  talk •  email  04:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Our Sign-Up and Speak-Up Policy is Explained here on the Community portal page. Please share your thoughts there or on the talk page. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Lynton! I wanted to say hi here and type out the response first. As Petri says, it's a policy we have, explained there (here). For my part, I'm the softie who was slow to block people at first. In fact I'm still vague what the problem with zombie accounts is, and at least as open as anyone to a change. And, in fact, as soon as I helped set that policy (I coined sign up and speak up!), it became less useful as real contributing members started showing up (but often still not speaking up right away) - I blocked one on accident (Claycali, see above) but we un-blocked him and I coaxed him back. So, we're enforcing loosely, giving benefits of the doubt and time. I certainly am keen not to chase away contributors of any sort, but we have the policy for some good reason. And I will now double-check that PavewayIV feels welcome as I hope, but with the warning in place until the three of us core folks agree to change it. Fair enough I hope? --Caustic Logic (talk) 07:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks guys, I've read your responses and taken a look at your policy. I still have my concerns. If you are facing persistent vandalism or spam, then that is something we can assist you with, as we have a range of tools not available to wiki administrators to combat this. I've just blocked a number of IP addresses that have been problematic in the past. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have these issues again. That being said, I've seen your block log, and there are three entries for this month. The administrative effort to clean up after three accounts is hardly worth the massive disservice you are doing to this wiki by following this particular policy. I urge you to reconsider, and in the meantime I will consult with my colleagues regarding this particular policy. — Lynton  talk •  email  03:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Lynton. I created this wiki, although i'm not the one who proposed the policy in question. That was Petri Krohn who has a chest full of badges over at wikipedia and knows what he is doing. We made sure that nobody goes unaware of the policy not only by the description you were already made aware of, but also by a bold red message after account creation. The reason why there are only three blocks you have seen in October might have something to do with the fact that October wasn't a usual month at ShoutWiki. When signing up I've seen no "certain requirements" that would prevent us from cleaning the user list from zombie accounts, many of them easily to google as spammers, while giving clear guidelines to new users how they avoid to be mistaken as such. So, Caustic Logic did not really threaten the user, but gave him an additional reminder of our policy, I suppose because his name doesn't follow the usual pattern. Maybe we should keep in mind to do this in a friendlier manner, giving the benefit of the doubt not only by the action of an additional message, but also by the tone of it. Would that be better? --CE (talk) 10:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * We should have a template.
 * As to the block log: No one has been blocked because of our "policy". We have one banned user, the "SEO Spammer". All the other accounts have been blocked as verified or suspected sockpuppets of this one user (or simply for spamming). How we identify sock puppets is an other story. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Absence Note
Just as Petri re-appeared, I disappeared. It's only been a day or so, but in case anyone's worried, I'm popping on at Fed Ex Kinkos for a minute to say didn't die. My ancient modem finally did. The new one should be here in a day or two and I'll be back then. --Caustic Logic (talk) 04:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Did I mention that I have fiber-to-the-home.
 * Screw modems! In a previous life I connected about 1000 of my neighborhood homes to the Internet with fast Ethernet connections – for free. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * An interesting brag, but otherwise, whatever, I'm set up again. --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

formatting chat
As i've seen you added an supposedly internal Noura link, and i've fixed one or two already and saw also Petri fix one, here's a little smart-assery (so that you have your own talk page as well ;o)):

An external link, like you used now, has the problem that should the wiki move at one point, those links are "hardwired" and have to get fixed manually (and they have that little symbol indicating them to be external). This is what you used:

Noura

Single brackets, link, space, description. An internal link goes like this:

Noura

Double brackets, name of the article, pipe, description. Relative, should URL change it will still work. And if the internal link goes to a different section of the same article, you can shorten it like this:

Noura

--CE 00:29, 26 September 2012 (EST)


 * Oh, I thought that only worked when it had the exact name of a whole page. Will practice and keep in mind. Thanks for the smart-assness, hope to be just as smart-assed someday. :) --Caustic Logic 09:01, 26 September 2012 (EST)

What's wrong with front pages?
(moved from Talk:Talkalakh massacre) I just went to create a front page before someone created a re-direct, but was too slow. I see it does appear under "All Pages", so that's cool. But I still find a slight problem in that talk pages don't show up under "new pages." Anyone looking there will think we have no such page and move on. I prefer the MO I usually use of having a stub page with a hard re-direct to talk. Most subject warrant and get some kind of front page past the stub, eventually. A request, or alternately, invitation to debate reasons. --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The redirect is there partly because it is included in Category:Massacres. Without it it would be really difficult to find this talk page. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I see that. You'd have to know to look under T, for Talk, not T for Talkalakh... Hmm, odd example to use this on. Same problem though for Houla but worse -skip to "the." The idea of a prominent re-direct is to re-direct people and minimize that problem. It can be missed by a sloppy reader, so the automation would help with that. And some people just won't look at two pages. Hmmm... Ah, I'm tired. --Caustic Logic (talk) 12:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What is the problem? The category is in the redirect, not on the Talk page. Talkalakh massacre is listed under T in Category:Massacres. The italics in the category view mean it is a redirect, not a real article page. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh I don't know. I'm still tired. Never mind. --Caustic Logic (talk) 23:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * That's timely, I was meaning to say something about an I think unfortunate development. I first liked the idea of having a talk page before an article page, but not to the extent it is happening now. Most of what is on our long talk pages belongs on the front page. Wiki pages are not meant to be static anyway, they develop. And it's very difficult for people to extract information out of our mixed Information-Chatter-Information style pages as they are now. For example the amazing work you lately did with the Homs stuff, most of that is more than ready to be on the front page, minus a few subjective remarks and all the signatures scattered around. I encourage us to do more work directly on front pages again and use the talk pages only for what they are meant to be: Talk - about certain unclear details, scopes of articles, specific research that needs input of others, etc. Otherwise it's really a waste of energy and counter-productive, as likely nobody will go through the mess and extract the info after the topic is cold and everybody wandered off to the next. In this spirit I started the Adra front page. :o) --CE (talk) 11:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You're totally right, mainly. I think between front page material and the usual talk page stuff is a zone of semi-fluid detailed stuff ... that should just be squished into the talk page category. But some can be cut out and moved, and some stubs graduated. It's been an issue for a while, because it'll probably take a while to move much. Anyone can feel free to move my stuff (because so much of the chatter is mine), Homs Massacres is ready to move today or so, though in that case I want to clean it up along the way. --Caustic Logic (talk) 00:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all, so much (like everything) of the content is yours and there is no reason to not put it directly to the front page while you are researching it. We others can correct little stuff like typos etc without being shy about it, and factual/etc disagreements can be raised on the talk page if they appear. This also goes to our "new" members: Don't be shy to add to front pages. There should be, for example, a paragraph somewhere about those Higgins/Hersh/etc controversies, where new stuff can be added by a factual statement ("in return Higgins had no problems to publish an article at the established Foreign Policy website" with a reference to that article). So that in time there will be something that is informative and grows with the development without further need to edit. Like for example the section of the Ghouta thing I took care of on the front page, the Sellström investigation. Just had to fix the tense and add a link, and voila. You noticed that the final report was released? --CE (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool, I scanned the report. Almost said something, but it wasn't enough to bother. Something like I look forward to analysis of this, it seems quite interesting. As for talk page use, one thing I started to say above - there's issues of contention, opinion and discussion, collaborative research, and maybe "workspace" has been a crutch, but there's also another use I should fish for thoughts on. Some stuff is worked-out, but I feel like it's just too detailed for the casual reader and should just get a summary up-front and more space in the rear. But just typing this out I think the answer is oh well, that's why there are section breaks, etc. It should go up front. Right? --Caustic Logic (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * To drive this home: I am the "super admin" here, just because I technically started this wiki (I could theoretically change its name or the background color). Me, Caustic Logic and Petri Krohn are the three admins here and that core team will stay like that for the foreseeable future. We are not in any form moderating on-topic content, as long as it is based on information and not just baseless slander. Everybody is entitled to start new pages about topics they are interested in, and add to existing topics in a reasonable manner. --CE (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Instincts against stepping on peoples' toes are good enough, but that can go too far. Anything helpful with new pages, edits and re-arrangement on old ones, etc. is probably cool. It's my toe you'd step on half the time, and I'll probably catch and politely contest any changes I disagree with, but usually I'll just agree, I presume. And not to push off work except kind of. I'll be working on this stuff too. --Caustic Logic (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've been thinking more as I work, still using talk pages as just workspace. One thing is if the research was a discussion it'd stay since it's talk. But I can't help it if no one else stepped in and the talk is monologue. I say this isn't wikipedia and we needn't follow their formula. Talk page can mean back page for chatter, all too-detailed info for a readable front page, and all that. But recognizing it's hard to sift through, anything important should go on (or at least be linked right from) front pages, which we need more of and more filled in. Two pages of space for each subject has been handy. CE, anyone else, what do you think of that perspective?--Caustic Logic (talk) 06:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not really sure if I get what you mean. My main point was that one (incl. you) shouldn't be shy to put stuff directly on the front page instead of collecting it with many signatures on the talk page. Mainly for future articles. So that the sorting-out you did rather successfully now re:Homs doesn't have to be done in the first place. By all means use the talk page for everything that helps your way of working. --CE (talk) 18:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I was just thinking about it too much, and a bit wrong. I feel a front page deserves good standards I'm not always feeling up to. But you're right that it's easier to just do the work and revisions right there where people are most likely by habit to look. Saves some time with copying that, so far, often just never happens. Will keep working on that. And everyone else (including you) feel free to adopt and populate any front page you notice sorely lacking. --Caustic Logic (talk) 02:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Rooftop Massacre
I'm not sure where to introduce this as a topic. As far as I can tell it's not on any page here.

Rooftop Bodies Aleppo

And associated video

"Grenade Civilians"

It appears to be April 2013 in Aleppo and a score or so of soldiers blown up, shot, and beheaded, and possibly civilians as well --Charles Wood (talk) 08:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It doesn't sound familiar, and a lot does fall through the cracks. I'm thinking back to April, Aleppo, and rooftops and I've zeroed in one one, through which alleged chemical grenades were dropped from a helicopter, or tossed by hand down an open stairwell... Strictly context. This is very interesting video. I'm not even certain these are the same scenes. I would imagine a scene like that - men trying to surrender on the roof of a smoking building, just blown away in cold blood - HRW or someone should have mentioned that. I'll check into it. And compare the videos to see if this is one or two rooftop massacres or one. Interesting, but maybe not its-own-page interesting. The best place to take a copy might be Siege of Aleppo, which I think still needs a front page. So Talk:Siege of Aleppo. Oh, and Other research is a good spot for recommendations. --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I started a spot at other research. Whichever of us gets inspired first can copy over the links. I'll save analysis or additions 'til then or later. --Caustic Logic (talk) 14:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Does this have some relationship with the bodies thrown off the roof of the Post Office in Al-Bab? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems to be a different and more recent scene, and only one guy is apparently blasted off the roof (if the same scene, there must have been more blasts or something). About corresponds to the swarming of Sheikh Maqsoud district in Aleppo. --Caustic Logic (talk) 14:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)