It's him - he seems to make a lot of comments under his own name in bitcoin related articles like
http://techcrunch.com/2014/08/12/shift-is-developing-a-debit-card-that-lets-you-spend-digital-currency-loyalty-points-and-regular-money/
If he truly loves bitcoin (which sort of seems like he does) and he has been hired to manipulate or sockpuppet etc, he should blow the whistle and become a hero. No one can be absolutely certain of the right decision, but everyone can be absolutely certain of abhorrent behaviour such as hiring sockpupets or ddosing or trying to sabotage other implementations, etc. Such behaviour therefore should be exposed regardless of whether one agrees or not with the message as the need to even engage in such behaviour suggests awful motives.
It may be more likely though that he has been hired to do seo or some menial thing and finds himself willing to lick his client's boots. We probably don't even need to think they hiring sockpupetts when it also makes sense to think that they have far too many employees or contractors all of whom are very vocal in support of 1mb4eva, which in the end amounts to the same thing.
As an example, you may remember
GibbsSamplePlatter and his constant support for small blocks - well it became obvious why:
If you look at this page:
https://www.blockstream.com/team/ you can see just how many people they hire (a lot) and plenty are not even mentioned like presumably Gibbs whose real name I don't know.
You'll find many of them on the core slack channel as well. Obviously we know about Adam and his tweeter propaganda, but leviathan (Johnny Dilley, Strategy Director at Blockstream) is constantly there as well as the "core tech engineers" such as Warren Togami and of course we know about maaku and his empty threat that he will quit (which in a way amounts to trying to hold the whole community hostage) and gmax etc. I suspect mjimim or whatever his nick is, is probably employed by blockstream as well or awaiting an offer.
Of course it is not fair to paint blockstream as a fully monolithic entity - for example sipa just gets on with the code (most of the time) as does rusty and tries to stay out of it, and on the other hand there are some individuals who have been persuaded to favour small blocks (but are hardly vocal, if at all), but I think that the overall behaviour of blockstream and the majority of its employees shows that the survival of blockstream depends on controlling bitcoin which is an unfortunate and abhorrent conclusion, but fully explains their unwillingness to compromise as well as their ridiculous rhetoric.
I am not sure why they *need* such control though. I can only think that some or most or their main products depend on making protocol changes which they fear would be highly controversial and not accepted by the community. If they can persuade everyone of their silly theology that we should never hardfork, that something requires 100% consensus when they disagree but easily mergeable without that consensus when they agree because of whatever wordplay, that they the smartest people on earth and they know best and everyone should just shut up and follow along then I suppose they'd be able to change the protocol in whatever way they like to serve their bitcoin intranet for fee paying private products.
