8 ms·

Jani Patokallio who runs gyrovague.com published a blog post attempting to dox the owner of archive.today. Jani justifies his doxing as follows "I found it cur

Jani Patokallio who runs gyrovague.com published a blog post attempting to dox the owner of archive.today. 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-a-ddos-attack-against-my-blog/#:~:text=I%20found%20it%20curious%20that%20we%20know%20so%20little%20about%20this%20widely%2Dused%20service%2C%20so%20I%20dug%20into%20it%2C 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 Or are we just looking at an unhinged fan stalking their favorite online celebrity? 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.

woopsn 6mo ago
As of now the site is in-fact a C&C/botnet. Cloudflare naturally fixates on such risks, not speech (generally). The basic purpose of 1.1.1.2 is to not wind up part of botnet.
- viktoresku 6mo ago
  Cloudflare strikes back for AT's blocking 1.1.1.1 for years. How did 1.1.1.2 managed to work when 1.1.1.1 did not?
throwingcookies 6mo ago
[flagged]
- JasonADrury 6mo ago
  You've caught me!
- jojomodding 6mo ago
  Be careful, you might be doxxing someone and that of course warrants your website getting DOS'd.
rdevilla 6mo ago
[flagged]
- rcakebread 6mo ago
  Read the archive.today blog, whoever is running archive.today already made many posts about Patokallio and his family members.
dgxyz 6mo ago
I'm wondering if Jani is possibly going to walk into the wrong party here and get burned. I did some public archival stuff about a decade ago and it was state sponsored and for the intelligence community. I'm not suggesting this is but it'll be very much of interest to competing intelligence services as it's an information control point. None of those are the sort of people you start pissing off by sticking your dick in it. FBI is likely just one of the actors here.
- derefr 6mo ago
  You seem the right person to ask about this: why don’t we see any public web archivers operated by individuals or organizations based in countries that aren’t big fans of aiding or listening to American intelligence?
  - dgxyz 6mo ago
    Well they certainly do exist. However they tend not to even get noticed because the mindset and momentum behind everything is America-centric.
- echoangle 6mo ago
  Why would stuff for the intelligence community be made public? Wouldn’t it make more sense for them to keep it private?
  - pamcake 6mo ago
    They already mentioned info control. Also visitor and flow data prob juicier than the archives themselves for site like .today. 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.
  - dgxyz 6mo ago
    Ours was a private archive of public content. There was a long discussion of the intelligence that could be gathered or information manipulated if it was public
gyrovague-com 6mo ago
Jani here. What you describe as "doxxing" consisted of a) a whois lookup for archive.is and b) linking to a StackExchange post from 2020 called "Who owns archive.today" [1]. There is literally no new information about the site's owner in the post, all names have been dug up before and are clearly aliases, and the post states as much. [1] https://webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/145817/who-owns-archive-today-and-archive-is-and-where-is-it-hosted https://webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/145817/who-owns-...
- thomassmith65 6mo ago
  If the site operator is working for the FSB, doxx away! Although the world needs a better alternative to Internet Archive, it shouldn't be an alternative that is an arm of an authoritarian government.
  - 2postsperday 6mo ago
    [dead]
- croes 6mo ago
  Isn’t doxxing most of the time just collecting data from multiple public sources and connect them?
  - walletdrainer 6mo ago
    Yes, that is exactly what “doxing” almost always refers to. It’s a very disingenuous response.
  - protimewaster 6mo ago
    Maybe, but I don't think that distinction matters here. Surely you're not contending that it counts as doxing every time someone collects data from multiple public sources? 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.
Mogzol 6mo ago
All your comments are painting archive.today as an innocent victim in all this, but in addition to the DDoS, they have been caught modifying archived pages as well as sending actual threats to Patokallio [1] which in my opinion seem far worse than the "doxxing". 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-archive-today-after-site-executed-ddos-and-altered-web-captures/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/wikipedia-bans-a...
- walletdrainer 6mo ago
  [flagged]
  - throwaway90812 6mo ago
    [dead]
- wl 6mo ago
  Which pages have they been caught modifying? And where's the evidence? I've seen this accusation multiple times but never with concrete details.
  - echoangle 6mo ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Archive.is_RFC_5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment... Under „Altering of archived pages“
    - BoingBoomTschak 6mo ago
      This is quite scary, even if I'm a bit wary of accusation coming from this crowd notorious for having their own cabal(s).
KronisLV 6mo ago
> It's weird to see people getting fixated on the DDoS, which is obviously far less nasty than actually attempting to dox someone. 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.
dddgghhbbfblk 6mo ago
>It's weird to see people getting fixated on the DDoS, which is obviously far less nasty than actually attempting to dox someone. 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.
- smohare 6mo ago
  [dead]
- JasonADrury 6mo ago
  > The DDoS is pretty obviously ridiculous, completely unacceptable, and entirely indefensible, while the blog post seems like whatever 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.
eipi10_hn 6mo ago
Don't use my computer to DDoS others please. That's nastier than the shallow post of that article.
Aurornis 6mo ago
> It's weird to see people getting fixated on the DDoS, 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.
- JasonADrury 6mo ago
  >The weird part to me is that some people are seemingly trying to downplay a popular website abusing visitors to DDoS someone. What's the true, practical impact being downplayed here?
  - mafuy 6mo ago
    You cannot seriously argue that performing a DDOS on a website, and causing other people to participate in it unwittingly, is a-ok.
    - JasonADrury 6mo ago
      Where did I ever argue that? It's obviously not "a-ok". It's just "meh", a silly childish tantrum.
      - deleted 6mo ago
        [deleted]
pasquinelli 6mo ago
it's weird to see the term "doxx" be abused until it doesn't mean anything.
refulgentis 6mo ago
> Or are we just looking at an unhinged fan stalking their favorite online celebrity? 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!
- JasonADrury 6mo ago
  >the way Jason Drury shifts from “tried to dox” to “doxx’d” I double-checked all my comments, that never happened.
  - refulgentis 6mo ago
    Jason it’s literally right above us lol
viktoresku 6mo ago
It is not "doxxing" but something weirder, "bulling" may be a better word, or as you said "stalking their favorite online celebrity". 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.

woopsn 6mo ago

As of now the site is in-fact a C&C/botnet. Cloudflare naturally fixates on such risks, not speech (generally). The basic purpose of 1.1.1.2 is to not wind up part of botnet.

viktoresku 6mo ago
Cloudflare strikes back for AT's blocking 1.1.1.1 for years. How did 1.1.1.2 managed to work when 1.1.1.1 did not?

throwingcookies 6mo ago

[flagged]

JasonADrury 6mo ago
You've caught me!
jojomodding 6mo ago
Be careful, you might be doxxing someone and that of course warrants your website getting DOS'd.

rdevilla 6mo ago

[flagged]

rcakebread 6mo ago
Read the archive.today blog, whoever is running archive.today already made many posts about Patokallio and his family members.

dgxyz 6mo ago

I'm wondering if Jani is possibly going to walk into the wrong party here and get burned. I did some public archival stuff about a decade ago and it was state sponsored and for the intelligence community. I'm not suggesting this is but it'll be very much of interest to competing intelligence services as it's an information control point. None of those are the sort of people you start pissing off by sticking your dick in it. FBI is likely just one of the actors here.

derefr 6mo ago
You seem the right person to ask about this: why don’t we see any public web archivers operated by individuals or organizations based in countries that aren’t big fans of aiding or listening to American intelligence?
- dgxyz 6mo ago
  Well they certainly do exist. However they tend not to even get noticed because the mindset and momentum behind everything is America-centric.
echoangle 6mo ago
Why would stuff for the intelligence community be made public? Wouldn’t it make more sense for them to keep it private?
- pamcake 6mo ago
  They already mentioned info control. Also visitor and flow data prob juicier than the archives themselves for site like .today. 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.
- dgxyz 6mo ago
  Ours was a private archive of public content. There was a long discussion of the intelligence that could be gathered or information manipulated if it was public

gyrovague-com 6mo ago

Jani here. What you describe as "doxxing" consisted of a) a whois lookup for archive.is and b) linking to a StackExchange post from 2020 called "Who owns archive.today" [1]. There is literally no new information about the site's owner in the post, all names have been dug up before and are clearly aliases, and the post states as much. [1] https://webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/145817/who-owns-archive-today-and-archive-is-and-where-is-it-hosted https://webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/145817/who-owns-...

thomassmith65 6mo ago
If the site operator is working for the FSB, doxx away! Although the world needs a better alternative to Internet Archive, it shouldn't be an alternative that is an arm of an authoritarian government.
- 2postsperday 6mo ago
  [dead]
croes 6mo ago
Isn’t doxxing most of the time just collecting data from multiple public sources and connect them?
- walletdrainer 6mo ago
  Yes, that is exactly what “doxing” almost always refers to. It’s a very disingenuous response.
- protimewaster 6mo ago
  Maybe, but I don't think that distinction matters here. Surely you're not contending that it counts as doxing every time someone collects data from multiple public sources? 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.

Mogzol 6mo ago

All your comments are painting archive.today as an innocent victim in all this, but in addition to the DDoS, they have been caught modifying archived pages as well as sending actual threats to Patokallio [1] which in my opinion seem far worse than the "doxxing". 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-archive-today-after-site-executed-ddos-and-altered-web-captures/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/wikipedia-bans-a...

walletdrainer 6mo ago
[flagged]
- throwaway90812 6mo ago
  [dead]
wl 6mo ago
Which pages have they been caught modifying? And where's the evidence? I've seen this accusation multiple times but never with concrete details.
- echoangle 6mo ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Archive.is_RFC_5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment... Under „Altering of archived pages“
  - BoingBoomTschak 6mo ago
    This is quite scary, even if I'm a bit wary of accusation coming from this crowd notorious for having their own cabal(s).

KronisLV 6mo ago

> It's weird to see people getting fixated on the DDoS, which is obviously far less nasty than actually attempting to dox someone. 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.

dddgghhbbfblk 6mo ago

>It's weird to see people getting fixated on the DDoS, which is obviously far less nasty than actually attempting to dox someone. 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.

smohare 6mo ago
[dead]
JasonADrury 6mo ago
> The DDoS is pretty obviously ridiculous, completely unacceptable, and entirely indefensible, while the blog post seems like whatever 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.

eipi10_hn 6mo ago

Don't use my computer to DDoS others please. That's nastier than the shallow post of that article.

Aurornis 6mo ago

> It's weird to see people getting fixated on the DDoS, 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.

JasonADrury 6mo ago
>The weird part to me is that some people are seemingly trying to downplay a popular website abusing visitors to DDoS someone. What's the true, practical impact being downplayed here?
- mafuy 6mo ago
  You cannot seriously argue that performing a DDOS on a website, and causing other people to participate in it unwittingly, is a-ok.
  - JasonADrury 6mo ago
    Where did I ever argue that? It's obviously not "a-ok". It's just "meh", a silly childish tantrum.
    - deleted 6mo ago
      [deleted]

pasquinelli 6mo ago

it's weird to see the term "doxx" be abused until it doesn't mean anything.

refulgentis 6mo ago

> Or are we just looking at an unhinged fan stalking their favorite online celebrity? 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!

JasonADrury 6mo ago
>the way Jason Drury shifts from “tried to dox” to “doxx’d” I double-checked all my comments, that never happened.
- refulgentis 6mo ago
  Jason it’s literally right above us lol

viktoresku 6mo ago

It is not "doxxing" but something weirder, "bulling" may be a better word, or as you said "stalking their favorite online celebrity". 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.