Some paper reviewers feel the pressure to criticize something in order to appear competent. Sometimes they feel this pressure due to huge blank form fields for criticism in the reviewing system. As a consequence, they sometimes criticize wrongfully. Fully recovering from wrongful criticism during review is sometimes possible, but not always. This hurts the research community.
A while ago a saw advice in a video to have harmless and rather obvious mistakes (typos, inconsistent notation) on purpose in the manuscript when submitting for peer review, in order to avoid the aforementioned problems. I don't recall the details, nor who gave that talk.
Are you aware of such videos/articles, or can give examples of specific "diversionary tactics"?
Note that I'm only asking about specific example tactics. If you want to discuss (dis)advantages of choosing to use them at all, please open another question, and I'll be happy to link to it.
Edit: This question isn't about the pros and cons (see above). Many answers so far are as if I asked about the pros and cons (which I didn't).
Also, I'm not saying "I plan to do this, try to stop me". I just want to find the information that exists about it.
Note that I mean harmless mistakes. Also, they are fixed before publishing even if not asked to.
A related technique from programming is called "a duck".
The psychological phenomenon is called "Parkinson's law of triviality".