How, exactly? I'm afraid I don't see the connection between your claim and what I said. How does addressing the subject of Wikipedia's death before addressing the subject of editors leaving mean he thinks he is "more important than his audience"? Is his audience desperate to know more about the editors, and openly contemptuous of the importance of Wikipedia's supposed decline and impending demise? Are editors his only audience, and thus he is ignoring them by addressing the death of Wikipedia first?

A meaningless statistic, taken out of context, means very little to anybody who takes the time to think about it. Broad public claims that Wikipedia is dying can do Wikipedia considerable damage, especially since it exists because of donations. He'd have to be incompetent at his job, and probably an idiot, to consider the statistic the more important of the two.

He didn't say editors are meaningless. He said that a statement about the number of editors leaving is meaningless without context. Which is true.

If you think that he is "listing half a dozen facts that have nothing to do with the question", then you don't understand the question. The question is not, "Are editors leaving Wikipedia in droves?" The question *he* cares about is, "Does this claim that editors are leaving Wikipedia in droves mean Wikipedia is dying?" So, he states outright that this claim is being made, and then disputes it. Only after he takes care of the important stuff does he address the question of number of editors. So, no, this wasn't "smoke and mirrors" (to give the actual name to the trick). It was his attempt to address what *he* considered important before talking about the accuracy of what *you* consider "the question".