"
Actually, I don't think it's particularly 'enlightening' at all!  First, the essay implies that a person may be inclined to view a number of edits as coming from 'the same person'.  I view that implication as an example of a 'straw-man argument':  A person builds up an (intentionally weak or flawed) argument, solely for the purposes of knocking it down.  That's not particularly enlightening, except that it reveals that people generally have more luck knocking down a position if they've built it up, specially, just for that purpose.
I view the matter more as an example of a commonality of self-selection:  Consider that if you're at the top of El Capitan (natural rock pillar), you will find (generally) two types of people:   1.  Very rich people who can (and do) hire a helicopter to fly there.
2.  Very capable, enthusiastic, and competent rock climbers.
In other words, you don't find there many people who are both poor and handicapped, merely because of where you happen to be.  (and, if you're actually there, chances are that you, too, are either rich or a very good rock climber.  Wikipedia is, quite likely, a 'magnet' for 'control freaks'.  (and others, obviously.)  I've read comments that some editors make tens of thousands of edits.  While I could say, ""Get a life!"", I don't view such enthusiasm as INHERENTLY bad, wrong, or a problem.  But, I think there may very well be an ASSOCIATION between OCD-type (Obsessive-compulsive disorder) editing, and 'control-freak' behavior.
There are other clues that must be considered.  A person who is acting out a 'control-freak' fantasy, wants to control as much as possible.  Apparently, WP has made it quite easy to 'revert'  to a previous edit.  That ability is not NECESSARILY bad (against vandals), but it implicitly encourages a kind of 'all or nothing' reaction:  If a 'control-freak' wishes to manipulate, as much (and as many) as possible, it's far easier to simply 'revert' ALL of an edit, rather than (carefully and selectively) remove ONLY as much of a 'problem' as actually exists.  Ever heard an old saying, ""When the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to treat all problems as if they were nails.""  One of the most 'inefficient' routes, from the standpoint of a 'control-freak', is to actually stick around and dispute the propriety of the original edit, and the characteristics of the 'control-freak's actions. 
A 'control-freak' gets his jollies, most readily, by UNdoing what others have done.  (The 'control-freak' feels, explicitly or implicitly, that he doesn't have to 'justify' the status of the article BEFORE his victim's edit!).  If the 'control freak' must actually distinguish between 'proper' posting and 'improper' posting sections, he becomes far less 'efficient' at manipulating others.  (He must spend far more 'valuable' (in his not-so-humble opinion) time READING, and distinguishing, rather than merely reverting!   Consider a hypothetical 'war' between a person who is making a 'house of cards', and another person who views it as his task to impede the first:  The latter person needs merely show up for a second or two, every few minutes, and knock down the 'house of cards'.  Minutes or hours of work is gone, in a moment!  VERY 'efficient', from the standpoint of the 'control freak', but not for his victim.
 Worse, if the 'control freak' must first obtain a CONSENSUS (something which WP ostensibly requires) he is powerfully impeded from excercising his 'control-freak' tendencies.  (I am not considering, here, raw 'vandalism', of course:  Very arguably, it SHOULD be easy to completely revert actual, genuine 'vandalism'.)  It is not surprising, therefore, that 'control-freaks' are far more likely to simply revert ALL of an edit, QUICKLY, preventing consensus, and refusing to justify it in any actual discussion.
Thus, I notice that (in, so far, every case), every 'drive-by deletion' to which I have been a victim involves a person who REVERTS ALL of my edits (Check!), and not merely a portion of them (Check!) and who does so VERY quickly (Check!), who prevents any sort of consensus from forming (Check!), and who doesn't bother to stick around to debate the propriety of the original posting, or the 'freak's' abrupt erasures (Check!).
  Aha!  Things are getting quite clear, at least from the standpoint of the 'control-freak' in question.  But why should a flock of others try criticize the victim, and NOT the 'control freak'?  Is it because I think 'they're the same person'?  ('Straw-man argument')   Noooo!  Consider another saying, ""Birds of a feather flock together"".   If there were only a single 'control-freak' in the world, nobody else would have any motivation to assist him, or to help victimize his victims.  But there are many 'control-freaks', and each understands that if ONE 'control freak' gets impeded, prohibited, or criticized, or exposed, the next one COULD BE THEM!  After all, I