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