Not limited to Google, not by a long shot.

"Speaking personally, on every day that I'm blocked, I add college traditions that never existed, transpose digits of population figures or world records, and create articles on bullshit "folklore" that is often absurd; this is what Wikipedia will have to put up with if I am to be blocked from it. About 1 in 3 of my vandalisms survives for a year, and several have been reproduced on other articles."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mike_Church http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_so...

etc. It's a gift that keeps on giving.

You do realize that (a) most of those "sockpuppet" accounts are nonexistent (0 contributions) and (b) User:Isomorphic was kicked out of school for being caught drunk with his 15-year-old girlfriend, right?

If not, then you don't know what you're talking about.

I've learned quite a bit about the michaelochurch argument technique from this thread:

Step 1: Make up stories about your enemy that nobody on the forum can verify. (Be it that your manager is a terrorist or that the Wikipedia admin who banned you is a child rapist.)

Step 2: ???

Step 3: Post again with an even more grandiose tale.

Why are you wasting your time on HN when you could be writing screenplays instead?

I have no idea whether "User: Isomorphic" was a child rapist. He got in trouble for her being intoxicated, and for supplying alcohol to a minor, and so there were a lot of suspicions, but I don't know what was proven and, quite honestly, I don't want to even think about that. I prefer not to think about the sorts of people who do that stuff.

The "terrorist" thing is getting taken way out of its original context. I was not comparing Google's problem executives to terrorists. I was saying that they enjoy destruction and take inspiration from it. I could have replaced "terrorist attacks" with "gruesome accidents". They're saboteurs, not terrorists.