" 

 == Your personal attacks == 

 I don't normally whine when other editors attack me, as I believe that taking in more than you dish out is the only reasonable recipe for getting along. However, for wiki-political reasons I am always happy to make an exception for admins who make over-eager 'civility' blocks. This is a formal warning for making personal attacks against me. Here is why: 

 :Your  that it's OK to refer to groups of editors and individuals that you disagree with using derogatory terms because you're correct flies in the face of every element of cooperative editing.  You truly should be ashamed of yourself for promulgating such an absurd position. 
 :I don't care if you're pro-gun or anti gun - or pro-German or anti-German.  You can't go around calling other editors derogatory names.    

 It is true that I referred to ""the US gun lobby"" as a bunch of nutters. However, that's an essentially verifiable statement about a political group which (ignoring their possible lobbying activity on Wikipedia) has nothing to do with Wikipedia. By adding the words ""editors and"" to your first sentence, you made it partially wrong and created the incorrect impression that I characterised a group of editors thusly, which I did not. (HiLo did that  after a long process of taunting which you completely ignored when you blocked him. But I never endorsed that.) Also, ""nutter"" is a descriptive term with a specific factual content. The relevant definitions in the American Heritage Dictionary are as follows: 
 * A crazy or eccentric person 
 * An enthusiast; a buff: a movie nut. 
 It is true that this term can be used in a derogatory way. Such derogatory use is when you apply it to a person or persons to whom it does not strictly apply. However, it should be clear beyond dispute that the US gun lobby consists primarily of gun nuts (gun enthusiasts). Moreover, as can be demonstrated with countless reliable sources, a widespread view globally among other industrialised countries as well as a significant view inside the US is that the US gun lobby consists to a large degree of crazy, or at least eccentric, persons. (I have given you an excellent Swiss source for ""foolish"", for example. In view of TParis' ridiculous ANI comment ""A demonstration of 'world' view would be helpful by showing worldwide opinions instead of that of Europe and Australia"", I feel obliged to add that that's asking for a ridiculous standard of proof. There is no such thing as ""worldwide opinions"" as opposed to opinions in the various countries that make up the world. TParis seems to think that it's just the Germans and Australians who are a bit eccentric. Admittedly, though, large parts of the Arabic world probably agree with the NRA on gun control.) 

 It is not OK to use derogatory terms for editors, article subjects or other individuals. I don't think I have ever claimed that it is OK, certainly not recently, and you have provided no evidence that I have ever made such a claim. Yet you accused me of having made it. 

 You then, for no apparent reason, told me to be ashamed of myself. That's a personal attack in the sense of WP:NPA#WHATIS: ""Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence."" But it seemed based on your error about the facts, so I let it pass. 

 ""I don't care if you're pro-gun or anti gun - or pro-German or anti-German."" This is where it first gets really interesting. Being German is not really something one should be proud of, but I can't help it. It's rare that someone alludes to my ethnicity in a hostile communication situation. Outside Wikipedia this has never happened. In Wikipedia it has happened about half a dozen times if we don't count situations where I was trying to mediate in ethnicity-related conflicts. It was always by the type of editors whose career ends with an indef block after half a year tops. Pretty surprising stuff from an admin, especially taking into account WP:NPA#WHATIS: ""Racial, sexist, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, sexual, or other epithets "" / ""Comparing editors to Nazis, dictators, or other infamous persons."" / ""These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done."" I am not inclined to let this one pass. This was a deliberate insult, calculated to stay just below the line where plausible deniability ends. I think you miscalculated, but we don't have to discuss this out. If you are wish to escalate things further, we may get a neutral opinion on this. 

 ""You can't go around calling other editors derogatory names."" This one is puz