After a lot of reading, I'm inclined to believe that the accusations against you are fabricated, but there's one thing I'm still not clear on: did you actually set up any code to send repeated random requests to an external site?

If so, I'm curious what your reasoning was, as I can't seem to think of a good reason. Even if was a significant threat, that still seems like an odd way to respond.

P.S. If you get the TV interview, could you link to a recording, pretty please? (Even if there's no English)

It was Patokallio’s blackmail from the beginning: if the 3Hz “DDoS” would stop, he wouldn’t hype the story via his friends in the media, even though hyping it was actually preferable for us than slowly sliding into inferno. We had to continue with the “DDoS” to keep annoying him, so he, thinking he was repaying us with harm, actually carried out a scenario that is a win-win-win for everyone: Jani got his advertising clicks which help him survive in overpriced Australia; Wikipedia got its pill from moral panic; we got vaccinated against the next WAAD (probably against Conde Nast too: after their covering the Wikipedia story, it would be a bit difficult to attack us as “yet another 12ft clone” without accusing Wikipedia in large-scale piracy).

The “changed page” with an Easter egg was supposed only to Patokallio’s eyes: it is the dead link linked from his blog, absent in archive.org (along with whole `lj.rossia.org`—why? someone’s petty revenge for Verbitsky’s “Anti-Copyright” book?), so he must rely on the archived copy to attack the very same archive. The dramatic reaction from Wikipedians, when Jani revealed it to them, was somewhat unexpected, but it did not change anything: they closed the referendum a few days earlier, the result would have been the same. They could have opened and won such a referendum without all this drama—just Patokallio old blog post’s propaganda, which is considered an “authoritative source” there, would have been enough.

This also reinforced the initial guess that it was Patokallio who was behind the media amplification of the “FBI story”: the very same Jon Brodkin of ArsTechnica—who seeded the “FBI story"—acted again as a Patokallio’s sockpuppet: he republished Patokallio’s blog posts instantly, while never wrote anything about us without Patokallio (e.g. on more newsworthy AdGuard/WAAD drama).