If I wanted to analyse the ethics of the whole situation, no of course I can't.

But I can say that an unethical decision on the part of one party spurred on an ethical response from another.

If a robber breaks into a house a pedophile and discovers illicit material, are the police unethical for following up on that lead?

It's weird, but I remember a completely different consensus on journalists publishing and using "hacked" information just last year.

Abusing one's admin position to dox someone is not really distinguishable from any principled position against publishing hacked information.

It's weird to me that this ethical consideration seems to be something that can be ignored whenever convenient.

Was this information "hacked" from the US government or a corporation? We've frequently seen dumps of information from corporations and governments that could not be acquired legally but leveraging them is, IMO, a net good. There is no "person" that's being harmed, just a company's profits.

They doxxed a person, and allegedly misattributed racist comments to the wrong person based on that info which was gathered without authorization from Disqus.

That probably shouldn't rise to a CFAA violation, but there was a supposed ethical standard around publishing hacked information, so it's a bit weird to see that ethical consensus come and go so easily.