Jani justifies his doxing as follows "I found it curious that we know so little about this widely-used service, so I dug into it" [1]

Archive.today on the other hand is a charitable archival project offered to the public for free. The operator of Archive.today risks significant legal liability, but still offers this service for free.

[1]: https://gyrovague.com/2026/02/01/archive-today-is-directing-...

It's weird to see people getting fixated on the DDoS, which is obviously far less nasty than actually attempting to dox someone. The only credible reason for Jani to publish something like this is if he desires to cause physical harm to the operator of archive.today

People were critical of the Banksy piece, but this is much nastier. At least Banksy is a huge business, archive.today does not even make money.

Oh, and a great injection point of malware, which can be more sophisticated and selective than the DDoS under discussion. Hard to come up with a more efficient browser-0day deployment pipeline if youre flying under radar and want to be able to target arbitrary individuals.

[1] https://webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/145817/who-owns-...

Even a half-assed attempt at doxing is still an attempt at doxing.

It'd be much easier to accept that you're acting in good faith had you deleted the post when it became obvious that the target doesn't appreciate it.

You could still do that, and it would very simply be the right thing to do.

It's all just publicly available information.

Anyway, I think a normal grown-up should be able to accept that we simply feel differently about just how unacceptable doxing is.

I encourage everyone to read the original article and make their own conclusion. Do not take this poster at their word.

No, I think it's grounds for a much harsher response.

Even a bad attempt at doxing is a threat of violence.

> you attempt to portray it as “doxxing” to mislead people into thinking that someone’s identity or address was published against their will

This is you being dishonest, nothing I've said suggests that. The very comment you're replied to calls the doxing "half-assed".

If you want to define doxing narrowly (as it was historically) then I would agree that all (or nearly all) such cases are wrong, but this is by no means clearly doxing. If you want to define doxing widely (as is common lately), then I'll accept this is clearly an example of doxing, but note that there's nothing inherently wrong with doxing.

Just saying "doxing" does not establish that the underlying actions are immoral, and so it does not follow that the target not appreciating it is relevant. If I take the last parking place in a crowded lot, the driver behind me certainly won't appreciate it, but I have no obligation to give it up. If you think Jani has done something incomparable to taking a parking place, you need to make the case.

It's probable that in the later 00s this would have been called a "faildox", but it's still just a fundamentally dick move to try to identify someone online who doesn't want to be identified. It doesn't matter if you do a completely shit job at it.

I fail to see how that’s supposed to be any better.

I've always understood doxing to be PII, which aliases aren't, AFAIK, unless they're connected to a real person. And, to my knowledge, everyone is contending that the names in the blog post are all aliases. And, regarding aliases, I've never understood it to be doxing for someone to say "FakeNameX and FakeNameY appear to be the same user."

So, to me, the thing that makes it not look like doxing is that it simply doesn't meet the basic definition of doxing. It provides no PII.

"Dox" is short for "documents", and it originally referred to compiling a multi-page document of all known personal information, using disparate public sources: name, address, phone, email, employer, family members, family address/phone etc, etc, etc. It came from troll boards and was designed to make it easy to harass targets.

The term got significantly watered down when it got out to the broader internet.

https://gyrovague.com/2023/08/05/archive-today-on-the-trail-...

Just the fact alone that they modified archived pages has completely ruined their credibility, and over what? A blog post about them that (a) wasn't even an attack, it is mostly praising archive.today, and (b) doesn't reveal any true identities or information that isn't already easily accessible.

From my perspective at least, archive.today seems like the unhinged one, not Patokallio.

[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/wikipedia-bans-a...

Patokallio started with his completely unprovoked doxing of archive.today. Doxing someone is an implicit threat of violence, why else would you need their physical identity if not to reach out and touch them?

Both parties here come across as unhinged, but one is clearly much worse than the other.

Under „Altering of archived pages“

Why even do that, then? Why not just make a public post of theirs like: "Hey, here's someone trying to doxx me, and here's the unfair and fictitious bullshit the lying government is trying to pin on me. Here's all the facts, decide for yourselves."

Why do something as childish as DDoSing someone which takes away any basic good will and decency/respect you might have had in the eyes of many?

That way, it'd also be way more clear whether attempts at censorship are motivated by them acting as a bad actor, or some sort of repression and censorship thing.

I don't really have a horse in this race, but it sounds like lashing out to one own's detriment.

Check their comment history, they are offended by pretty much any comment that as much says as "DDoS and personal attacks are not okay".

This guy behaves like a crazy person if he goes through those hoops to attack people on the internet for two blog posts. Wtf on so many levels.

I would say the opposite... The DDoS is pretty obviously ridiculous, completely unacceptable, and entirely indefensible, while the blog post seems like whatever.

I honestly cannot fathom defending using your popular website as a tool to DDoS someone you have personal beef with, without the consent of the DDoSing participants.

The DDoS hasn't even successfully taken the website down, so your objection is entirely ideological.

It's a pretty messed up ideology if attempting to take down a website is worse than potentially subjecting someone to violence by attempting to dox them and sharing your work.

The weird part to me is that some people are seemingly trying to downplay a popular website abusing visitors to DDoS someone.

How does your information (two angles) change anything at all about that fact? Normally if any website was caught abusing visitors to DDoS another website there would be no debate about why this is a bad thing. What about your other angles was supposed to matter in deciding if this was a bad thing for a website to do?

Two wrongs don’t make a right. Feeling wronged by someone doesn’t give you freedom to abuse every visitor to your website to DDoS someone else.

What's the true, practical impact being downplayed here?

It's obviously not "a-ok". It's just "meh", a silly childish tantrum.

In this case, question is recursive. I have no idea who Jani Patokallio or gyrovague.com are, and the way Jason Drury shifts from “tried to dox” to “doxx’d” makes me wonder if this is astroturfing by Jani or Jason or a 3rd party. Who knows!

I double-checked all my comments, that never happened.

The quality of investigation is too poor to be "doxxable", even Jani (in his reply here) accepts it, and no sensitive info is disclosured, but the blog post and its promotion here and there spread dangerous rumors like:

"AT is connected to Russia"

"AT is connected to Israel"

"AT is connected to Hackers"

"AT is wanted by FBI"

"AT does not like Nazis"

...

This is what Jani does.

Hell I use it to circumvent paywalls.