Thank you for taking the time to review my unblock request. I am officially requesting a reversal of my permanent block status which resulted from editing Lisa Hajjar's Wikipedia page on October 25, 2023. On October 8, 2023, Ms. Hajjar -- a person in a public position of trust as a UCSB Professor and Department Chair -- posted to her public Twitter account a cartoon showing support for Hamas' terrorist attack on Israel which occurred on October 7, 2023. As a person in a public position of trust, Ms. Hajjar's public support for an organization recognized by the U.S. government and multiple other governments worldwide as a terrorist organization, can be considered fair content to be shared with the public, so the public may be made aware of who the California public school system has employed (and may therefore be empowered to make an informed decision on their own regarding the impact of the matter). Please note: these edits were never meant with an intention to "defame" Ms. Hajjar, as (1) I didn't include any subjective material -- only an objective fact -- supported by a citation to her X (Twitter) post, and (2) I cited the facts surrounding the October 7, 2023 terrorist attack with five different and globally-recognized news sources. My question to administrators, or to any user of Wikipedia, is: why are we attempting to hide from the public what officials in our public school system are publicly posting? This appears to violate Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia "praised for its enablement of the democratization of knowledge, extent of coverage,..." according to its own Wikipedia page. I believe my edit to Ms. Hajjar's page falls under the "democratization of knowledge". Please note that I am absolutely willing to update my edit if there is different language you believe might be considered less obtrusive, but simply enacting a permanent ban on a editor's account with the words "not here to build an encyclopedia" is insufficient reason for a ban on someone who has followed Wikipedia editing policies for over 18 years (on this account, and another). Again, thank you very much for taking the time to read my appeal, and I look forward to hearing from you about how to correctly go about holding public officials responsible for their actions. With all my thanks and appreciation, Calib589

Our policies protecting living persons is foundational bedrock. Your edits, which have been removed from the article history, completely contradicted those polices, and there in nothing in your appeal that persuades me you wouldn't continue posting such material should you be unblocked. Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In full transparency for all administrators and the public who are following this ban, please cite the specific wording that you, as an administrator trusted by Wikipedia to uphold its policies, claim to be completely contradictory to said policies. This is my third request for wording used in my edits that violates Wikipedia policy. Again, posting a public statement from a public official is encouraged and allowed by Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Twitter). A public official showing public support for any organization does not violate any policy whatsoever (this Twitter post did not contain explicit or graphic material of any matter). Otherwise, your desire to block me becomes a subjective, rather than an objective, action. Thank you for your understanding, and I look forward to your response with supporting material which I will happily review.

Please include a decline or accept reason.

I don't understand how you keep rejecting my appeal without referencing the wording that violated Wikipedia's policy. How am I supposed to learn what has displeased you so much? I still feel this subjective. Your last rejection to my appeal didn't cite any reason. How is this transparent and democratic? Please advise, any other admins who would kindly shed light onto the matter. Thank you

Please include a decline or accept reason.