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 very rich people who can and do hire a helicopter to fly there 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