Essay on Meta. As Mr. Farrar points out no one has indicated that this is humor and not a serious essay.

Can we win the argument on that point by noting that the essay is tagged as Category:Humor?

Sounds like JzG's M.O.

Does that suffice to classify him as Clownish in the sense of Bauder?

He's passed far beyond that point. I find him pathetic.

Category:Humor is pretty subtle. What Wikidiots need is more like the tag {{Humornotguideline}} which puts a nice big template box on top of the article. This is more helpful for those who have become accustomed to templates as a replacement for thought.

It had occurred to me that Wikipedia had turned into a contest between Pamphleteers vs Templateers.

That needs updating with:

- Claim on your userpage, and remind everyone on talk pages, that you have several advanced degrees in fields related to the subject at hand. Whether you do or not doesn't matter, and Wikipedia
doesn't "have a problem with that" anyway. Opppostion to your position will melt away in reverence. Genuflecting may even occur.

- Find an admin who has a personal grudge against the same person you do, then enjoy the mutual revenge with ammunition behind you.

- Claim harassment. There's nothing like crying wolf to rally up the wikipedian mob, all the way up the crazy ladder to the WP top, to your side. Dr Frankenstein will flee from you and your torch-bearing hordes never to be heard from again.

- When you lose the argument, just ban the winner. You win anyway.