I am affected by a range block on 213.239.192.0/18, justified by "it being believed to be an open proxy". In fact, it belongs to a legitimate German server hoster, Hetzner Online AG, and for various reasons I tunnel my entire internet traffic through my hired server machine, which is hosted with them. Since IPs within the block are handed out on a static basis, blocking the entire range does not seem reasonable to me.

unblocked range due to collateral damage -- Samir 18:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above-referenced block (on 213.239.192.0/18, again) appears to have been reinstated. I would much appreciate if future blocks could be limited to the addresses actually known to operate open proxies...

I have left the block in place, but have given your username exemption from it. You should now be able to edit, so long as you remember to log in.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Collateral damage from a range block. Please reinstate IPBE flag.

You have made only one minor edit to article-space over the past 18 months, and I therefore cannot justify again allowing IPBE on the basis of your need, whjich clearly does not exist. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 09:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Repeat unblock request because I find the above justification very questionable. Before I give up on this, I would appreciate it if the following three points could be addressed: * Does this reasoning imply that if I were a new rather than returning user, I simply would be banned from editing for no reason other than that my (static, registered to my name, devoid of open proxies) IP address happens to fall into a block with several open proxies in it? * Even if the above is the case and irrespectively of whether there is any sensible justification for it, is it also the case that taking a one-year break from editing is tantamount to forever forfeiting any right to? As it stands now, there is little I can do to provide evidence of activity, short of trying to somehow get hold of an alternative IP. The circumstance that the break was in part motivated by the original sequence of blocks further contributes to a certain feeling of indignation on my end. * As I also outlined in my response below to the comments of the administrator who originally removed the IPBE, I fail to see any good reason for this policy to be upheld and plenty against. Already at this point, I think that the number of hoops I had to jump through feels very much like a punitive measure for some crime I wasn't even as much as accused for committing; having to defend myself in this fashion is far from a pleasant activity and I could have put the same energy into making plenty of actual content edits. If an IP range block prevents the creation of new accounts, what issues would even arise from making it the default policy that IP range blocks never affect logged-in users? That would seem like a basic consequence of the good-faith assumption. In the event that this request is also denied, I would appreciate it if you could at least leave me with some pointers regarding how to take this to arbitration or whatever instances there might be in place nowadays to ask for a more orderly review of such a decision.

I have reinstated IPBE on your account. To address your concerns. The block wasn't intended to directly block you. Your block was unfortunately due to collateral damage. The reason why IPBE was removed from your account was more procedural and was not a result of any misbehavior, disruption, etc. Elockid ^(Talk) 19:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]