::Thank you for your response.
Here's mine:
You call it my "harassment campaign". I call it seeking a dispute resolution.I supported every statement in my RFC, filed at meta, with the differences. Since when seeking a dispute resolution is called "harassment"? May I please ask you to explain how come that  my RFC  that arbcom calls "harassment" was not deleted at meta, that it was called a valid RFC by an admin on Meta, that another Meta admin stated: "I think a substantive response to his or her allegations would be more valuable", that yet another Meta admin said to Gwen: "it would be fine to see your response there"? Also I am not sure I understand what "specifics of my harassment" are you talking about. May I please ask you to list these "specifics" here? Some differences would be nice too.
Yes, I was instructed to stop by arbcom, but I was never explained why should I stop, or rather I was told that I should stop because I am "waging a vendetta against this administrator because of an ancient incident", which is incorrect. Any unbiased person would agree that there are real problems with Gwen Gale performance as sysop described in this section alone with at least one of them that happened just a few days ago. As a result of my research Gwen Gale was questioned about  two blocks she imposed.
Instead of reblocking me arbcom had to address the evidences presented in my RFC, which has never been done. I consider this dishonest not only towards me, but towards Gwen Gale as well.
Now about the reblock itself: 
Blocks are not punitive. Before this block I was blocked since July of 2011. My latest contribution to my talk were made 2 months ago, and I had absolutely no intentions to come back, so what this block suppose to prevent? Am I supposed to be so upset with the block that I would stop my fight for the victims of bullying? I got an impression that arbcom is afraid om my RFC and of addressing it. This block violates each and every basic blocking policy.I believe that with this block arbcom fell to a new low.

Hersfold, I have one more question for you please. You wrote: "This block was based on the consensus of the Arbitration Committee". For transparency may I please ask you to post to my talk who voted for and against (if any) the reblock. IMO this will be an important piece of info that I see no reason not to disclose. 
I'd like  to thank arbcom for this reblock one more time. It demonstrated better than anything else that  RFC I filed on Meta was the right thing to do. Cheers.