Just as a note 111.111.111.111 is in a range owned by KDDI (Japanese telecom carrier), bar.com is owned by some individual who has dedicated the bar.com web site to complain about people abusing their domain name.

@Shog9 ... 3 and the, from the get-go, rather accusatory tone all added up. I still think it would make sense to address this but I won't poke further.

@Shog9 You're right, that is not a word you used and I'm sorry if you feel that I've misrepresented the early communication. I, and others, have clearly read something into your statements that you didn't intend; for me things like "rogue moderator" and "I'll be going through server logs this weekend to attempt to determine what was actually being done here", comments like these 1, 2, ...

@Shog9 I'll just make the point that I didn't and still don't find it clear how you reached conclusions like that the activity was malicious; an apparent early conclusion which seems central to all that happened, as well as likely set the tone, from that point on. (Not entirely sure what to make of your last sentence, considering the circumstances.)

Yes, this look seems to be consistent across browsers and OSes. (Chrome 41, Firefox 37 on Windows and OS X, IE 11 on Windows)

@Sven While it probably is moot in the sense that HopelessN00b has said he's not interested, the question is also quite tightly related to the other points that have been brought up here about owning up to ones mistakes.

@Shog9 As for "I don't think it would've gone down any differently", it's very possible that the outcome in many ways would have been the same except the lasting impression of you and possibly SE staff by association. It got ugly, you made some (imo) rather unprofessional statements and I think that has damaged the trust on a different level than what the all-business let's look ahead posts focus on. (Posts which I do appreciate, I just don't think it's wise to dismiss the other aspect of what went down.)