Assuming you are who you say you are, thanks for the feedback.

> All that said, the post does not actually dox anyone (as far as I can tell, every name mentioned is an alias or red herring)

Well, you clearly do have struck a nerve. And the article at least comes off as the attempt to dox someone. Curiosity is one thing, publishing these findings (where the original sources may fade in time) is another. It's quite evident the person behind archive.today does not want the attention. Just saying, your post doesn't exactly say respect privacy. Would you not have published, if you were actually confident to have found the guy? I got the impression, you would have published regardless.

> the "investigation" was basically punching things into my favorite search engine and seeing what came up.

I think that's what doxxing is, for the most part. You did the work, so everyone else doesn't have to. Nation state threat actors and "the copyright cabal" also got other stuff to do, technical feasibility isn't really a valid argument. Nation state actors could also hack, extort, or kill someone. Ethically, that's of no consequence regarding your own actions against someone.

Not saying you are the worst person ever, but I can totally see why you attracted someone's anger.