More details are available at the links above. I'll mention an important one here: It took more than three months for me to even be told why it had been reclassified, and that only after a well known cosmologist threatened the Scientific Director of arXiv that he would complain to the arXiv sponsors if things aren't cleared up. Also, there is evidence that the reason I was given is not the real one.
Although I would like my paper to appear in astro-ph, this in not about just my paper. Rather, it is about the question whether the community wants arXiv to decide which papers, and hence which people, are allowed to be part of that community, as opposed to peer review by respected journals such as MNRAS.
I humbly submit that it is not appropriate professional conduct to reclassify a paper, at least one for which experts in the field see no reason at all for such a reclassification; not inform the author that it has been reclassified, much less of the reasons for the reclassification; make it against the rules to withdraw a reclassified paper before it appears in what the author deems to be the appropriate category; ignore the appeal (also, the appeal is difficult because, at least for astro-ph, the process is not well documented); finally give a reason only after several months and then only after being threatened that the arXiv sponsors would be be informed of misconduct (and even then apparently lying about the reasons for reclassification).
If you agree that arXiv should always allow articles which have been accepted by a leading journal in the field to appear in what to essentially everyone would be the obvious category (e.g. astro-ph for astronomy and journals such as MNRAS, A&A, ApJ, etc.), then please complain to those who were involved in the decision not to allow my paper into astro-ph: the Scientific Director of arXiv Steinn Sigurdsson: ss3783 AT cornell . edu, the former Exectutive Director of arXiv Eleonora Presani: ep538 AT cornell . edu, the former Chair of the arXiv Scientific Advisory Board Licia Verde: liciaverde AT gmail . com (and/or liciaverde AT icc . ub . edu), and the former chair of the physics advisory committee, Robert Seiringer (robert . seiringer AT ist . ac . at) and express the sentiment in general and/or in connection with my paper in particular. (Note that Presani has now resigned, apparently with no successor. There is a new chair (the same person) for the arXiv Scientific Advisory Board and the physics advisory committee (the same person), but he came on board only after my ordeal. Sigurdsson is still in post. Seiringer and Verde are still on the committees and hence still (ir)responsible. Also, Dong Lai is still on the physics committee, with the specialty of astrophysics, that is, he should be the point of contact for me, but he didn't even have the courtesy to reply to my inquiries.)
I would appreciate it if you let me know whether you contacted them and if so whether you received a reply. If you like, you could summarize their reply for me.