Perhaps update the article to make a note that you don't control that site's docs? It wasn't immediately apparent that there's yet another party involved. I'd

Perhaps update the article to make a note that you don't control that site's docs? It wasn't immediately apparent that there's yet another party involved. I'd suggest that the tone of the article be very clear that the problem described is accurate and isn't trying to be downplayed. Suggesting that Aphyr write another "FUD" article comes across as dismissive of the issue. And that'll make people read more into the corruption/inconsistent comment. (Unfair as it may be.)