Below, I discuss some of Larry's post point by point; but I'll make the one central point here: I am not motivated by a desire to question LMS's authority. In fact, I don't question it. If you believe that I am so motivated, please tell me what I have done to support that belief.

: Tim, I completely reject the notion that the issue raised by Simon's post : constitutes "a blow to the harmony of the Wikipedia community." I : honestly think most people don't care about the situation.

The implied argument is that only if most people care about a situation, can it be be a blow to the harmony of the Wikipedia community.

LMS has failed to provide evidence to support that argument.

The above is also a case of the slothful induction fallacy, as there is plenty of evidence that many people do care about ths situation, as demonstrated by this and related threads, the discussion on various Talk pages, etc.

A much more plausible argument is that most people don't enjoy the situation, but that's very different from not caring.

: I think they : understand that I was engaged in an "edit war" with The Cunctator and : Simon, who mistakenly think it is *important* (that it will actually : achieve something of importance, other than a bit of "heat and noise") to : test and to call into question the limits of my authority.

Unlike LMS, I don't presume to characterize the motivations of others. I'm not interested in calling into question the limits of Larry's authority, as he asserts. I've been creating pages I believe should be on Wikipedia; he's exerted his authority, and taking it personally.

His characterization of this as an "edit war" is wholly misleading; because he used methods other than editing to press his case; rather, he 1) asserted authority (which he can justifiably do, but it's not editing) 2) erased pages (again, which he can justifiably do, but it's not editing)

I find it telling that I don't consider it a "war", but he does.

: That's what they've been doing lately.

Provide evidence that my actions are motivated by a desire to "test and to call into question the limits of my authority."

: I think most Wikipedians are of the opinion : that I should be given at least as much authority as I have taken upon : myself, and that stunts by people who are doing their best to question : that *small* bit of authority that I have asserted are not particularly : interesting.

This contains the begging the question fallacy ("I think most people don't care about the situation...stunts..are not particularly interesting"), the bandwagon fallacy ("most Wikipedians are of the opinion"), the complex question fallacy (I think most Wikipedians...and that stunts by people...") and ad hominem attacks ("stunts by people who are doing their best to question...").

: I confidently predict that in the indefinite future, there will be other : somewhat similar situations, in which people's pages are deleted and the : injured parties will demand justice in a public forum. Then I will, of : course, be accused of acting like an autocrat.

I have never accused LMS of acting like an autocrat, nor have I demanded justice. The above is irrelevant to any argument made regarding my actions.

: In many cases, these : accusations will be raised by teenagers and college students with too much : time on their hands, and by intelligent people with mental problems : whether moderate or serious.

This is an ugly and inaccurate implied ad hominem. As Sanger has already presumed to directly characterize my motivations, it is only reasonable to assume that the above is intended to defame my character by implied association.

Terms used are at http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Logical_fallacy and http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.htm.

The Cunctator