User:Gitz6666/sandbox

Viv Ansanm

Viv Ansanm is a coalition of Haitian gangs that emerged in early 2024, uniting previously rival groups under the leadership of Jimmy Chérizier. By March 2024, the alliance controlled approximately 80% of metropolitan Port-au-Prince and several surrounding towns. Viv Ansanm has been implicated in numerous violent incidents, including a massacre in December 2024 that resulted in over 180 deaths. The coalition has also been linked to attacks on journalists, with reports of threats and violence against media personnel.

On 29 February 2024, the Revolutionary Forces of the G9 and Allies united with G-Pep to form the Viv Ansanm coalition, which means "Live Together" in Haitian Creole. This new coalition is led by Jimmy Chérizier, and together, Viv Ansanm controls around 80% of metropolitan Port-au-Prince, as well as many surrounding towns. Chérizier describes the Viv Ansanm movement as demanding dialogue with the Conille government, and that Viv Ansanm is in opposition to the Haitian and American oligarchs holding power over Haiti. In a June 2024 interview, Chérizier spoke regarding the Kenyan police operation in Haiti, saying that the "politicians and oligarchs ... [called in] assassins and mercenaries from Kenya on the pretext that they will crush the gangs and battle Viv Ansanm. They will fight. Viv Ansanm will fight. The Kenyans are protecting the interests of the American oligarchs ... That's why they brought them here."

On 22 October 2024, SOS Journalists and the Association of Haitian Journalists (AJH) released statements calling upon authorities to take measures to protect journalists threatened by the Viv Ansanm gang coalition led by Chérizier.

Viv Ansanm reportedly massacred over 180 people in December 2024.

On December 24, 2024, during the reopening of Haiti's largest public hospital in Port-au-Prince, armed men attacked a press conference, resulting in the deaths of two journalists and a police officer, with seven reporters injured. The Viv Ansanm gang coalition, led by Johnson "Izo" André, claimed responsibility, stating the reopening was unauthorized.

History

Viv Ansanm was formed in September 2023 amid escalating gang violence in Haiti. The coalition comprised two major gang networks in Port-au-Prince, G-9 and G-Pèp, with the stated aim of protecting civilians and restoring stability to gang-controlled areas. Initially fragile and plagued by internal rivalries and infighting, the alliance consolidated in February and March 2024 when it launched a campaign of coordinated attacks on state institutions and prisons. This campaign led to the resignation of interim Prime Minister Ariel Henry in March 2024, demonstrating the coalition's operational capacity despite internal tensions.

The campaign coincided with discussions about the deployment of a Kenyan-led multinational security mission in Haiti. This proposed mission, perceived as a threat to Haitian gangs, may have encouraged greater cooperation within the Viv Ansanm.

As of October 2024, the Viv Ansanm alliance had a significant impact on the dynamics of gang conflict in Haiti. The truce between the previously warring factions led to a significant reduction in violence, especially after the consolidation of the alliance after February 2024.

The timing of these attacks coincided with discussions about deploying a Kenya-led multinational security mission to Haiti. Perceived as a threat by Haitian gangs, this proposed intervention may have spurred greater cooperation and strategic alignment within Viv Ansanm. By October 2024, the alliance had significantly reshaped Haiti's gang dynamics. The truce between formerly warring factions contributed to a notable reduction in violence, particularly following the coalition's consolidation after February 2024.

The emergence of the Viv Ansanm gang alliance in Haiti during late 2023 has significantly altered the country's security landscape.

While initially fragile, marked by continued infighting between member gangs, the alliance consolidated its power through coordinated attacks on state institutions and prisons in February 2024. These actions, which contributed to the resignation of interim Prime Minister Ariel Henry in March 2024, led to a notable decrease in inter-gang violence. Data indicates a 78% reduction in armed clashes and a significant drop in fatalities between March and August 2024 compared to the preceding six months. This period of relative stability has allowed Viv Ansanm to expand its territorial control, pursue revenue-generating activities, and resist security operations.

Paul Laband (24 May 1838 – 23 March 1918) was a German jurist, generally regarded as the preeminent authority on public law following the national unification and the establishment of the German Empire in 1871. Building on the work of Carl Friedrich Gerber, who had first advocated an approach to public law using Pandectist methods, Laband refined and extended this formalist orientation in the legal culture of his time. Laband's book Das Staatsrecht des Deutschen Reiches, reprinted five times between 1876 and 1914, was the most influential exposition of German constitutional law of the Wilhelmine era and a paradigmatic expression of late 19th-century legal positivism. According to this conception, legal science has a "constructive task" – the development of the legal system and its rationalisation – in the performance of which it must be guided solely by legal logic, without attributing any relevance to "historical, political and philosophical" considerations.

Biography and Work

Born in Breslau to a family of doctors of Jewish origin, Laband studied at the universities of Breslau, Heidelberg, and Berlin. After earning his doctorate at just twenty years old, in 1858, with a thesis on marital property, he obtained his habilitation for university teaching in 1861 in Heidelberg. At the beginning of his academic career, he devoted himself above all to the study of commercial law, also as co-editor of the "Zeitschrift für das gesamte Handelsrecht" from 1864, and to the history of German law, as evidenced by his main work in the field of legal historiography, Die vermögensrechtlichen Klagen nach den sächsischen Rechtsquellen des Mittelalters ("Property Actions According to the Saxon Legal Sources of the Middle Ages") of 1869.

In 1866 Laband was called to the University of Königsberg, where he began teaching public law and two years later became a full professor. His involvement in public law began accidentally, prompted by the teaching needs of the university, and drew inspiration from the events of the time: the Prussian constitutional conflict (1859-1866) and the founding of the North German Confederation in 1867. His debut essay in the discipline, Das Budgetrecht nach den Bestimmungen der preußischen Verfassungsurkunde unter Berücksichtigung der Verfassung des Norddeutschen Bundes ("Budget Law According to the Provisions of the Prussian Constitutional Charter in Light of the Constitution of the North German Confederation") of 1870 was an "unexpected" success and from then on Laband's work was all within the scope of that discipline. The essay on budget law is now remembered above all for the famous distinction between law "in the formal sense" and "in the material sense", thanks to which Laband was able to justify the policy of Otto von Bismarck regarding the exercise of the state budget in the absence of parliamentary approval.

Visit of Emperor Wilhelm I to the University of Strasbourg, 1886. After the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine in 1871, the Emperor and his Chancellor Bismarck wanted to make the newly established "Kaiser-Wilhelms-Universität" in Strasbourg a center for the propagation of German culture.

In 1872 Laband accepted a call to the new grand University of Strasbourg, a cultural institution personally desired by Bismarck and kept under strict government control. Despite active participation in the political life of the Empire and repeated offers of ministerial and judicial positions, he never wanted to leave Strasbourg, where he taught constitutional law and held various academic and municipal positions, from rector of the university (1880) to member of the supervisory committee of the municipal music conservatory. Politically active from 1880 to 1918 as a member of the Council of State for Alsace-Lorraine (1880-1911), member of the First Chamber of the Parliament of Alsace-Lorraine (from 1911 onwards), member of numerous ministerial commissions, Laband held these offices by virtue of the prestige achieved with his scientific activity and in particular with the publication of the first volumes of his most influential work: Das Staatsrecht des Deutschen Reiches ("The Public Law of the German Empire").

Published in three volumes between 1876 and 1882, subject to five editions, each of which was extensively revised (the last, in four volumes, from 1911-1914), Das Staatsrecht des Deutschen Reiches was hailed as a "monument to imperial pride in the field of public law", the most authoritative and influential exposition of German public law of the Wilhelmine era, and the most complete and paradigmatic theorization of 19th-century legislative legal positivism. The work consolidated Laband's "exceptional scientific success", making him the "celebrated leader of the discipline". The jurist was recognized as the founder and progenitor of a renewed science of public law that, after 1880 and until the Weimar Republic, dominated almost unchallenged in Germany, exerting a lasting influence also on Italian legal culture (through the work of Vittorio Emanuele Orlando) and French (through Raymond Carré de Malberg). As the German jurist Philipp Zorn recognized in 1907, "all work on constitutional law after Laband stands on his shoulders".

In Italy, Vittorio Emanuele Orlando was the founder of a "national school of public law" that largely adopted the method and teachings of German legal doctrine, including Laband.

Laband was also co-founder of three important German legal journals – the "Archiv für öffentliches Recht" (1886), the "Deutsche Juristenzeitung" (1896), and the "Jahrbuch für öffentliches Recht" (1907) – and was awarded various honorary degrees, orders of merit, and celebratory writings. It is said that Emperor Wilhelm II, in addition to appointing him to the First Chamber of Parliament "by virtue of the highest trust", expressed his appreciation for Laband by publicly regretting not being able to attend his lectures.

Of conservative political orientation, he was among the signatories of the Manifesto of the Ninety-Three, with which the best-known representatives of German culture and science denied Germany's responsibility for the outbreak of World War I and the invasion of Belgium (the so-called "Rape of Belgium").

The political presuppositions of Laband's "purely legal" approach have been described as follows:

the awareness of the secure bourgeois existential foundations of the new Empire; the unreserved acceptance of the political order created by Bismarck; the lack of sensitivity to issues relating to the content of positive law; the conviction that legal thought must fundamentally concern itself only with formal legal issues

— Manfred Friedrich, Paul Laband und die Staatsrechtswissenschaft seiner Zeit, 1986, das Bewußtsein von den gesicherten bürgerlichen Daseinsgrundlagen im neuen Reich; die vorbehaltlose Zustimmung zu der von Bismarck geschaffenen politischen Ordnung der Dinge; das mangelnde Problemempfinden für alle Inhaltsprobleme des positiven Rechts; überhaupt die Überzeugung, daß sich das juristische Denken grundsätzlich nur für die Formseite des Rechts zu interessieren habe, de

Critique

Laband developed the work begun by Carl Friedrich von Gerber in the Grundzüge eines Systems des deutschen Staatsrechts (1865): like Gerber, he intended to apply to public law the legal method developed in the studies of civil and commercial law by the Pandectist legal science of Georg Friedrich Puchta and Bernhard Windscheid. This implied the adoption of a "formalist" orientation in public law studies, not only in the sense of abandoning the theories of natural law, but more generally of purifying legal discourse from any historical, philosophical, ethical, and political considerations, which were still widespread in the Germanist orientations of the historical school of law (Otto von Gierke) and in jurists of progressive and liberal inspiration (Albert Hänel). In the perspective of Gerber and Laband, it was a matter of proceeding to the construction of a system of legal concepts and institutions devoid of extra-legal elements, as well as coherent and complete, in order to consolidate the "scientific" status of public law and to guarantee the certainty of law against the pressure of partisan political interests and pressures.

Cover of Paul Laband's book Das Staatsrecht des Deutschen Reiches, vol. I, Tübingen, 1876

In concrete terms, this program of building the disciplinary paradigm on "purely legal" bases took place through the removal of themes typical of democratic and liberal constitutionalism, such as the sovereignty of the people, human rights, the doctrine of the social contract, and the separation of powers. To Labandian formalism, these concepts seemed irremediably compromised with the ideas of Montesquieu (separation of powers), Rousseau (social contract, equality of citizens, sovereignty of the people), Sieyès (rights of man and citizen, national sovereignty, political representation), the idéologues, the Jacobins, the revolutionary natural law, and the French Revolution, which had proposed and used them for a radical critique of the political institutions of the ancien régime. In Germany, the theme of the "fundamental rights of the German people" recalled the debates of Vormärz liberalism and the Frankfurt Constitution. Therefore, these concepts were considered strictly political and extra-legal, and replaced

Birt, Michael P. (2017) [1st pub. 1985]. "Samurai in Passage: The Transformation of the Sixteenth-Century Kanto". In Kleinschmidt, Harald (ed.). Warfare in Japan. Routledge. p. 338. ISBN 9780754625179. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

In 1949, a Soviet commission of inquiry produced a report titled On the misdeeds of the Italo-Fascist troops on the territory of the Soviet Union, which detailed alleged war crimes committed by the Italian army on the Eastern Front. These accusations, including the execution of civilians and prisoners of war, forced labour, and the destruction of towns and villages, were largely ignored in Italy during the Cold War. Motivated by a desire to protect the army's reputation and distance it from the actions of the German occupiers, the Italian government prioritised preventing the extradition of accused officers over investigating the Soviet allegations. This contributed to a long-standing narrative, derived from war memoirs and early historiographical studies, that perpetuated the myth of the Italian army's innocence of war crimes on the Eastern Front. The cliché of "Italians, good people" prevailed unchallenged, despite evidence of Italian involvement in the German occupation and repression apparatus, war crimes against the civilian population and the exploitation of prisoners of war for forced labour.

* Schlemmer, Thomas (2019-11-21T00:00:00+01:00). Invasori, non vittime (in Italian). Laterza. ISBN 978-88-581-4048-2. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Reduxx is a self-described "truly pro-woman, pro-child safeguarding platform that could provide high-quality news and opinion on the stories the mainstream media ignores". [1] A quick look at their website shows that their only interest is in promoting misinformation and harmful stereotypes about transgender people. The constant use of phrases such as "trans-identified male" is indicative of this. Media Matters for America calls Reduxx "an anti-trans blog" [2] and notes that Reduxx has repeatedly misgendered volleyball player Blaire Fleming. [3] For more information on the site, see the article on its founder, Anna Slatz.

There are also zero, exactly zero sources that say I am not Tinkerbell. If the BBC, TIME, CNN, Smithsonian magazine, etc., had published articles saying "Elinruby is Tinkerbell", I'd expect some expert on Peter Pan to have written, if not a proper essay, at least a letter to those news organisations pointing out that it was quite unlikely. Today in Japan there are hundreds of experts on the Sengoku period, Oda Nobunaga, feudal Japan, military history, samurai, etc.; they have a vibrant academia and world-class universities and are well aware of what BBC, TIME, CNN, etc., publish. None of them felt the need to correct this serious misrepresentation, "Yasuke is a samurai". Besides, if one wants to hear the historians' view of the matter, this Google group is an interesting read. David Howell, Professor of Japanese History at Harvard University, writes that when he had not even heard of Lockley's book and was unaware of the controversy, he answered a direct question by saying that yes, Yasuke is a samurai. Dan Sherer, a historian of Pre-Modern Japan at the Department of Asian Studies of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, writes that Yasuke is a samurai "by any reasonable definition". I don't deny that there are complexities: Rômulo Ehalt, a legal historian at the MPI in Frankfurt, thinks that no one from the 16th century, not even Japanese individuals, should be described as a "samurai". According to out dedicated article and to Michael Wert [4], the word "samurai" was often used to refer to the lowest-ranking warriors at the time, so it's quite likely that it would have been offensive to call Yasuke a "samurai". But all this is not about Yasuke, it's about the concept of the samurai and how it has changed over time. There's no point in arguing about this, especially after two RfCs: this controversy over Yazuke's samurai status was not started by academics, but by people who learned everything they know about feudal Japan from video games. If and when a reputable historian explains why Yasuke should not be considered a samurai, our article will change accordingly. Until then, let's bury the hatchet and call it a day.

My evidence submission shows persistent unprovoked aggression by Elinruby towards me, which justifies a one-sided interaction ban to protect both my peace of mind and the quality of the discussions I am involved in. Elinruby doesn't look at what I actually do and say, but continues to argue on the basis of their assumptions about me and my intentions. This leads to many unfounded accusations and serious misunderstandings.

Elinruby's evidence submission provides some good examples. It has little to do with Yasuke but feels like more harassment. For instance, the way they comment this diff with aggressively policing speaks volumes: Jmendez75 had removed "samurai" and added I'm fucking going to [remove samurai]. He wasn't a samurai and anyone who says he was is a liar and a hack with no proof to back it up. I reverted and linked to the recently closed RfC. My revert was not aggressive: it was justified and in line with the RfC outcome. The same applies to this diff, which Elinruby comments with insists.

Regarding my alleged "Pattern of behaviour", Elinruby shares this diff and comments Already covered in lead"?!?. As the diff shows, the content I removed was repeated twice in the lead, the first time in the first paragraph, as I indicated ("she became the first Indian sprinter to win gold at the Universiade"). Elinruby doesn't look at all the good work I did on Dutee Chand on 30-31 August 2024, but looks for "patterns" to validate their perception of who I am. And in doing so, they misunderstand.

Regarding my editing restriction on Imane Khelif, Elinruby casts doubt on my compliance by highlighting compliance? in bold. The answer is simple: yes, I have complied. Anyone, including Elinruby, can easily verify this by checking the page history. Regarding "Ukraine for pattern of behaviour", their first diff shows that in September 2023 my tban from the Russo-Ukrainian topic area was lifted and that I told Callanecc I will avoid general editing of the area. Elinruby then shares 20 diffs to prove that I did not keep my word. By my reckoning, I've made about 1500 edits since the tban was lifted: compared to my previous level of involvement, 20 edits is nothing. I don't even check my watchlist anymore. And none of the diffs they shared prove any misconduct.

If there is anything that seems worthy of discussion in the other diffs shared by Elinruby, please ask.

Elinruby's evidence submission shows a clear bias against me, along with an inability to fairly assess my edits. Their focus on imaginary "patterns", their snide innuendos and repeated misinterpretations are damaging and uncivil. Together with the diffs I have shared, their submission calls for a one-sided interaction ban, which would greatly ease my editing experience on WP and prevent future disruption.

Evidence of sanctions applied to an editor on other Wikimedia Foundation projects should generally be excluded from behavioral disputes on the English Wikipedia.

While editors may be aware of actions taken against an editor on other WMF projects, they usually lack the full context to understand the circumstances of those actions. Standards of conduct and administrative action vary widely from project to project. Relying on such evidence risks introducing bias and hindering fair dispute resolution.

Evidence of misconduct on other projects may be considered in exceptional circumstances, such as when it is directly relevant to a pattern of cross-wiki disruption, or when it provides essential context for current disputes on the English Wikipedia. Outside of such cases, however, introducing evidence of sanctions on other projects may be a violation of WP:ASPERSIONS, as it can involve making unsubstantiated allegations that damage an editor's reputation without providing an adequate opportunity for rebuttal.

Such behaviour, if detrimental to the fairness of the process and disruptive to discussions of on-wiki conduct, may result in sanctions.

I don't think the main problem is the behaviour of us parties. There has been a lot of bludgeoning and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, especially from editors who disagree with the first RfC. As for us parties, the most worrying aspect is the hostility towards Symphony Regalia, which I think is a symptom of battleground mentality; I see no merit in Yvan Part's complaint against them. But overall, I'm more concerned about disruptive editing by non-party editors. Looking at the last seven days, 20-26 September 2024, we see:

• IPs removing "samurai": 17:06, 20 Sep 2024, 18:41, 20 Sep 2024, 18:45, 20 Sep 2024, 17:01, 21 Sep 2024 (this stopped on 21 Sep when semi-protection was restored).
• Newly registered editors/SPA doing the same: 06:10, 21 Sep 2024.
• More experienced editors doing the same: 11:47, 26 Sep 2024‎.
• Disruptive/unconstructive edits to the talk page by IPs: 19:50, 21 Sep 2024, 16:16, 22 Sep 2024‎, 14:40, 23 Sep 2024, 15:17, 23 Sep 2024, 19:21, 24 Sep 2024‎.
• Same by newly registered editors/SPA: 21:59, 25 Sep 2024, 22:42, 25 Sep 2024.
• Same by more experienced editors: 20:42, 21 Sep 2024.

To me all this suggests that ArbCom should consider whether having a new CT is in order.