Actually I dont think its 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 strawman argument  A person builds up an intentionally weak or flawed argument solely for the purposes of knocking it down  Thats not particularly enlightening except that it reveals that people generally have more luck knocking down a position if theyve built it up specially just for that purpose I view the matter more as an example of a commonality of selfselection  Consider that if youre at the top of El Capitan natural rock pillar you will find generally two types of people     Very rich people who can and do hire a helicopter to fly there   Very capable enthusiastic and competent rock climbers In other words you dont find there many people who are both poor and handicapped merely because of where you happen to be  and if youre 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  Ive read comments that some editors make tens of thousands of edits  While I could say Get a life I dont view such enthusiasm as INHERENTLY bad wrong or a problem  But I think there may very well be an ASSOCIATION between OCDtype Obsessivecompulsive disorder editing and controlfreak behavior There are other clues that must be considered  A person who is acting out a controlfreak 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 controlfreak wishes to manipulate as much and as many as possible its 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 controlfreak is to actually stick around and dispute the propriety of the original edit and the characteristics of the controlfreaks actions  A controlfreak gets his jollies most readily by UNdoing what others have done  The controlfreak feels explicitly or implicitly that he doesnt have to justify the status of the article BEFORE his victims 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 notsohumble 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 controlfreak 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 controlfreaks 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 driveby 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 doesnt bother to stick around to debate the propriety of the original posting or the freaks abrupt erasures Check   Aha  Things are getting quite clear at least from the standpoint of the controlfreak in question  But why should a flock of others try criticize the victim and NOT the control freak  Is it because I think theyre the same person  Strawman argument   Noooo  Consider another saying Birds of a feather flock together   If there were only a single controlfreak in the world nobody else would have any motivation to assist him or to help victimize his victims  But there are many controlfreaks and each understands that if ONE control freak gets impeded prohibited or criticized or exposed the next one COULD BE THEM  After all I have objected to Dodo    Reverting ALL of an edit     Preventing consensus when vandalism is not alleged against me    Reverting EXTREMELY rapidly hours    Refuses to discuss allegations of impropriety of HIS controlfreaks action insisting that the original poster is the whole problem So I see no reason to hypothesize that all these people must be the same one  They may be however driven by the same general motivations  Thats why not surprisingly nobody has bothered to address my repeated criticisms of the MANNER in which Dodo acted  Consider  A truly unbiased person might HYPOTHETICALLY say something like  Bell your posts did appear to violate some rules but Dodo was also wrong to revert ALL of them VERY quickly PREVENTING ANY sort of consensus to develop and to refuse to address what he Dodo did wrong  Yet such a comment was never seen in response to ANYTHING I said  But why not  One was that few truly UNBIASED persons will post  People are busy these days  They HAVE A LIFE  Its so much easier to NOT participate in discussionswithindiscussions  Its so much easier to ignore click away and let everybody else deal with it  It takes a rather powerfullymotivated person to want to take the time and effort even to simply comment  The people who did communicate with me after Dodo ran off were obviously far more powerfullymotivated than the average WP user  What was the source of their motivations  One strong possibility is that they saw one of their own Dodo catching flak for doing what I have come to realize Dodo does on a very regular basis  And they know that THEY too either do what Dodo does or perhaps theyd like to have the time to be able to do so   This cant be allowed to happen they might say  What if I  had to DISTINGUISH between proper and improper edit content rather than mechanistically simply revert the whole edit   Or What if I had to actually ALLOW consensus to develop  Id have to come back  times before I could delete that guys stuff  Horrors You can easily see how terrified such people would be  Their whole life of controlfreakdom would come crashing down around them So is my commentary really unfair  Ive tried not to set up a straw man the way the person who wrote the essary you referred to did But I have tried to illustrate that due to the nature of the world WP is controlfreaks become selfselected and they are simply the ones who show up and are the ones who are most motivated to post  They are too the ones who are disinclined to criticize people like Dodo for fear that somebody they too will be under the gun for THEIR editsreversions  So what do they do  Thats right they show up like a bunch of lemmings penguins  dodos Many years ago  I had an idea  One of the problems which COULD infect police departments is that people who become police tend to be those selfselected people who wish to manipulate other persons  I am not saying that ALL of them are like that  Over time police develop an environment where them v us the thin blue line etc rules the day  Suppose instead of allowing this to happen police were drafted  Im not saying anybody would be FORCED to be a policeman  I am a libertarian of course  Rather I speculated that perhaps they should semirandomly select a list of people at say age  perhaps twice as many as ultimately will be needed  Then pay and benefits will be raised to whatever amount is necessary to get say one half of the selectees to actually select the offer and become cops  Very few people could simply decide years earlier  I want to control people and become a cop because peoples presence on the list will be virtually random  Perhaps some requirements for education etc would be required  The crosssection of cops would moreorless reflect society and NOT the  of  percent of Nazitype control freaks   Put simply if you allow people to volunteer themselves into a position of abusible authority over others who do you expect will eventually be selected  Thats right the controlfreaks I recommend that you go back and figure out why the controlfreaks felt the need to speak up in favor of Dodo  I think I already know the answer to that