It has been a good long run and if it ended up any other way I wouldn’t have been trying hard enough to change the entrenched bias that exists there. The relevant discussion is located here. The follow-on discussion will be found here.
UPDATE: Yesterday I sent an email to the ban appeals subcommittee. Today I received an acknowledgment which simply states “This is a note confirming that we’ve received your e-mail. Someone should be in touch with you at some point.” So my request has made it into the queue.
After thinking about his response and my previous arbitration request against his implementation of the Climate Change Probation for an equally suspect interpretation of an AN discussion as we have here with my “ban”, it occurs to me that technically he and I are still in a dispute over that since the Arbitration Committee never actually heard or ruled on that complaint. I mean, I still dispute the validity of his judgment call in that case. Blocking someone that they are in a dispute with is typically considered bad form for any administrator. Just ask William M. Connolley and a number of others about that.
For this reason Ryan most likely should have left that closing to someone other than himself. Perhaps the photo Ryan has posted on his user page actually explains a few things and should be taken more seriously than it would at first appear. I’ll leave that for others to decide.
UPDATE III: Well, the subcommittee finally responded to me today. I have posted their response here. All things considered I plan to pursue option “(ii) six-months complete absence from the English Wikipedia.” which means I’ll resubmit my appeal some time around November 1, 2010.