I flagged several times serial downvotes that had not been reversed automatically by the time I became disappointed, but was always declined. (There are also many smart downvotes paced well enough not to be automatically detected).

Every post I make immediately receives one or two downvotes.

I have raised similar concerns in different scenarios. I was asked to respect downvotes as personal choices, to refrain myself from playing drama, or to contact SE customer services (which is always hard to reach, either doesn't follow up, or asks me to contact site moderators in turn, at which point I always stop trying).

Either indeed the moderators are impotent as they claim to be, or this site doesn't seem willing to recognize and curb the abusive downvotes (and close votes), and therefore let them flood, as a way to nurture the community.


Note1: I don't solicit upvotes here. I feel uncomfortable with irrational upvotes, and more importantly I can't withstand irrational downvotes.

Note2: I don't think my posts are high-quality. More importantly, I don't think them low-quality.

enter image description here

enter image description here

  • 6
    From the MSE FAQ: "Please do not try to get help on this issue on meta or by flagging for a moderator. All they will do is tell you to wait for the voting fraud script to run (they can't run it for you just this once)." ... or, did you expect for the serial downvoter to be suspended? – Andrew T. Feb 8 '19 at 15:45
  • @AndrewT. I do. In fact, I asked it a while ago here on meta. – Tim Feb 8 '19 at 15:46
  • 6
    What gives you the impression they are 'abusive downvotes' and not 'legitimate downvotes'? – Time4Tea Feb 9 '19 at 3:26
  • @Time Why ask those already shown? Prove that they are legitimate then? Are you trying to defend and endorse those behaviors? – Tim Feb 9 '19 at 3:32
  • 4
    I defend and endorse people's right to downvote a question, if they don't like it. That's how this site works. If you suspect someone is wronging you somehow, then the burden is on you to prove it, not the other way around. Simply casting a downvote is not, in itself, abusive. – Time4Tea Feb 9 '19 at 11:23
  • @Time4Tea (1) Can you explain why you ignore the evidence I provided in my post (and a lot more in my past posts), and keep saying that I don't prove it? Do you have any genuine intention to make this site work? (2) Why don't you ask yourself to defend against mental torture and lost of speech freedom to bullies, close votes, downvotes and automatic post removal, given that you claimed yourself to be so correct? – Tim Feb 9 '19 at 12:18
  • 3
    1) It looks like many of the downvotes are getting reversed. Presumably that is what the +18 for 'voting corrected' is for? 2) I'm not the one making accusations - you are. – Time4Tea Feb 9 '19 at 12:39
  • @Time Do you imply that I should keep silent as I use to be? I shouldn't spend more of my time with you. It will not do me any good. The fault detection algorithm is not God! – Tim Feb 9 '19 at 12:41
  • 3
    Another observation is that you posted 11 questions on Thursday alone. Perhaps you should consider focusing more on quality than quantity? Are you absolutely sure you did an adequate level of basic research yourself, before asking all of those questions? – Time4Tea Feb 9 '19 at 12:43
  • 7
    @Tim that's precisely your problem. You don't agree with other people's judgment of your posts, yet require that other people agree with your judgement of your posts. You think your posts are fine. Others think your posts are not fine and downvote them. That's just the way these sites work. You seem to want to ignore what everyone is telling you, not fix the issues with your questions and go on as you have been but without downvotes. Well, that isn't going to happen. You need to accept that people have the right to their opinion and the right to downvote posts they feel deserve it. – terdon Feb 9 '19 at 13:00
  • 3
    @Tim and how, exactly, can you tell the difference? What do you expect anyone to do? How can I know why someone downvoted you? How can you know? How can anyone but the person who voted know? Targeted votes that can be identified are reversed (by automated systems the mods have no control over). However, votes that do not seem targeted are not reversed. That really is the best anyone can do. – terdon Feb 9 '19 at 13:09
  • 3
    For the last time: the vast majority of downvotes you receive show no evidence of abuse. We have asked SE who can actually see who voted and they confirm that there is no pattern, and no targeting. In the few cases where there has been targeting, those votes are reversed automatically. That's the best anyone can do. If you still feel you get too many downvotes, then you need to improve the quality of your posts. – terdon Feb 9 '19 at 13:19
  • 1
    Tim, are you asking SE to suspend users who had their serial downvotes on your posts reversed? (From the MSE post linked by Andrew T.) – Jeff Schaller Feb 9 '19 at 13:33
  • 2
    statistics can only give significance measurements, and in most cases can not be used to draw a conclusion – Is your conclusion about being targeted drawn from statistics? How is it better? Is a hunch better? – Kamil Maciorowski Feb 10 '19 at 7:59
  • 4
    @Tim, just so you know, yesterday I did find the first occurrence of a user targeting you. They seem to have serially downvoted you two days in a row. That user has been dealt with. I just wanted to let you know so you don't think we ignore you. When we do find evidence, we do take action. – terdon Feb 10 '19 at 18:58

Tim, I actually agree that your questions sometimes get an undeserved bad rap.

For example, I think this recent question of yours is a reasonable question, but when I first saw it, minutes after it was asked, it was -4 already. It's now net +2, and it was net zero yesterday (when I linked to it in the chat), so it seems like the overall perception of it is that it's fine too. Something is off with how those initial votes came in.

I have answered questions from you. Quite often I found them interesting and an enjoyable exercise to answer.

However, frankly, many of your questions are low quality as the SE system defines it. The tooltip for the downvote button says "This question does not show any research effort; it is unclear or not useful". Even with the best will in the world, one or two of those seem like they apply a lot of the time.

(You may not like to keep reading, but please do read the part below the line at the bottom).

  • They are often answered in the very next paragraph of the documentation (or even within the passage you quote), or are questions about standard non-technical meanings of a word, or would be resolved by simply running the command at issue: these don't show any research effort - whether you made any or not, people aren't seeing it
  • Other times, they, for example, quote some documentation, and then ask about something that it doesn't say, or conflate evidently-unrelated elements: these are unclear, although probably VTC-unclear rather than downvote unclear (to me)
  • Still other times they are about such fine details that a reader could quite reasonably wonder what on earth the point is, and often these come in a tightly-packed sequence: these may be considered "not useful"

I don't think it's necessary to vote in that way, but it is within the bounds of how the SE model works.

As for close votes: these seem almost always to be as unclear (addressed earlier) or too broad: both of those can be corrected by edits, which - as you know - put the question immediately back into the reopen queue. Putting a question on hold is not a punishment, it's a reminder to make sure the question is as answerable as possible. The other closures seem largely to be "off topic - can't be reproduced", which is probably the closest of the radio-button options for "premised on a misunderstanding of standard English word or sentence". In those cases the question itself does seem to have been answered by pointing out the issue.

That is constructive feedback: it's telling you something you can do to improve how the questions are received. The close reasons offer suggestions of what to resolve. The downvotes don't, other than the tooltip, but those three kinds of issue are still fairly actionable.

For all that, people should be voting on the questions themselves, rather than on who's asking them. It's clear from the vote reversals you've seen that that sometimes isn't happening, and that question at the top is quite suspicious to me as well. On the other hand, my estimate would be that most of the downvotes on your questions are deliberate and considered, on questions that the voter genuinely believes not to show any research effort, or to be unclear or not useful, and even more so for the close votes.

I suspect that some are annoyed by the pattern of questions you've asked, and perhaps by the response from you to downvotes and closures (e.g. this question itself), and have ended up at best with a bit of a hair trigger and low tolerance for your questions. If they're downvoting on sight, they shouldn't be. Your many positively-scored questions suggest that most aren't doing so, but I do think it's likely that you're experiencing some of it, and probably a bit beyond what the vote-reversal script detects.

At this point you have over 26,000 reputation points and plenty of successful questions; you're well past all the privilege thresholds and passive reputation growth will keep you there. The votes have ceased to have any impact at all on how you can use the site, but I understand that it still hurts when the system tells you that something you've put effort into is bad somehow, all the more so when it's taking something away from you while it does it (even if you know that what you're losing is meaningless). I don't like it when I get them, and I don't expect anyone else to either.

I have been concerned about your recent posts here, and in comments on the site - particularly this meta question from a couple of months back. As it said, you never know what's going on in someone else's life, and I don't know what's in yours (nor, presumably, does anybody else here). I do worry about the pattern I'm seeing and the comments you've made.

Stepping outside my expertise and anything else about this place, and being uncomfortably presumptuous, I want to encourage you to seek out some someone outside this site to talk to professionally about what you've been experiencing lately here and elsewhere.

I'm not sure where you are or what sort of situation you're in, but there will be counsellors, therapists, etc available and I think it'd be beneficial to work with one of them. If you are being bullied and discriminated against, they can help to find productive ways of responding to it, and generally provide a non-adversarial sounding board.

Please consider it, and take care.

  • (1) Your last part is wishful thinking. If that would work, there wouldn't be many people struggling to make ends meet, whereas some others have infinite time for vanity. There are things that are not changeable. (2) I do not think my questions are low-quality, and I am not trying to change what others think of them. If you think my questions are low quality, that is because you have privileges that you don't realize or admit. Privileges mean various kinds of visible and invisible resources that make a lot of things easier. – Tim Feb 10 '19 at 12:26
  • (3) No matter one might think of others, be respectful, and don't suffocate others' right of speech. Moreover, bully is not a right! – Tim Feb 10 '19 at 12:26
  • What I lose is not meaningless. It is speech freedom. – Tim Feb 10 '19 at 12:51
  • 10
    Just to keep the issues clear, Stack Exchange is not a free-speech platform. As Michael said, the site has voting and closure mechanisms for the user community to moderate content. – Jeff Schaller Feb 10 '19 at 13:07
  • 6
    I was going to say exactly what Jeff Schaller said. This thing about freedom of speech entirely misses the point of Stack Exchange. It is not a general forum - no-one here has freedom of speech to write whatever they want in a question. It is a heavily-moderated platform with a very specific goal. – Time4Tea Feb 10 '19 at 13:39
  • ... goal to encourage bully. – Tim Feb 10 '19 at 13:40
  • 6
    Tim, the site works the way it does and it's not going to change just for you. If you don't like it, frankly your only option is to leave and find something else to do with your time. – Time4Tea Feb 10 '19 at 13:42
  • Frankly, you are crossing the border to tell me that. – Tim Feb 10 '19 at 13:42
  • 6
    @Tim - your freedoms work both ways, you're fine to stay and participate in a civil manner or not. No one forces you to participate or not. The rules are clear though and all are expected to contribute in a civil manner. Michael's post is another example of a thoughtful user trying to reach out to you and you treating it as an attack instead of someone that is generally trying to help you. – slm Feb 10 '19 at 14:08
  • @slm I do not treat Michael's post as attack – Tim Feb 10 '19 at 14:17
  • @Tim Wishful thinking it may be, but I still encourage you to give it a go. You never know until you try, right? It’s just a neutral outsider to talk to who has your well-being at heart. – Michael Homer Feb 10 '19 at 17:16
  • I have all kinds of privilege, including probably some I don’t realise. Could you give an example or two of the privilege you see that leads me to think that some of your questions are low quality? I would like to work on addressing that. – Michael Homer Feb 10 '19 at 17:19
  • @Tim Sorry, I guess I was unclear. You said that if I think some of your questions are low quality, that’s because of unacknowledged privilege. I was asking which it is that leads to my thinking that. – Michael Homer Feb 10 '19 at 18:15
  • I don't know how to describe them in a better way. Sorry. Moreover, It is just my own opinion. – Tim Feb 10 '19 at 18:21

Just so that it's not always @terdon having to be the face for the mods here on this particular issue.

You've continuously brought this issue up and want/expect the mods and/or Stack Exchange to take some sort of action regarding this. But in expecting this course of action you're assuming that the votes are without merit.

Should we make a similar judgement/assumption with the ~5k upvotes you've received as well, according to @terdon's query?


I think the larger issue that you're ignoring here is that a sizable segment of the users here are trying to signal you and you're ignoring that message because you've concluded that it's an attack or that it's unwarranted.

I've long ago stopped answering your questions because I've found them lacking in effort to solve things for yourself first. I've often thought that you were merely asking these simpleton questions as an approach for amassing rep, which breaks no rules and is a perfectly fine thing to do IMO.

But others, I would assume based on the feedback you're receiving, feel that this violates some notion of fair play in their minds, because it treats their time as less valuable than your own.

I feel saying this is somewhat justified because you claim to not care about rep, but are making an awful lot of fuss about it. In addition you've only ever contributed 23 answers to this site, but have asked 1442 (as of 2019-02-08).

Please try and take what I'm saying as constructive feedback to you. I do not want to drive someone away from the site, but I also feel compelled to say something because your behavior is impacting others on the site, and so as a mod I'm duty bound to look out for both sides of any issue.

  • All you wrote is false: "you're assuming that the votes are without merit." " I've often thought that you were merely asking these simpleton questions as an approach for amassing rep, which breaks no rules" " I've found them lacking in effort to solve things for yourself first." – Tim Feb 9 '19 at 0:21
  • You repeatedly asked me to accept your answers in the past when you were eager to expand your reputation and impact, but I didn't think your replies explained to the point that I could understand, so I didn't. – Tim Feb 9 '19 at 0:22
  • 8
    Well with in your rights, and not germane to the point of this discussion. – slm Feb 9 '19 at 0:24
  • I am a serious learner, though not a good learner. That doesn't give you the right to defame me. – Tim Feb 9 '19 at 0:24
  • 9
    I'm not defaming anyone. You asked a Q on our meta site and I'm trying to give you other peoples position on the Q you asked. – slm Feb 9 '19 at 0:25
  • I am very glad that you stopped answering my questions, because that gave me a lot of pressure whether to accept them or not. (I always upvoted your replies and others' though) – Tim Feb 9 '19 at 0:25
  • I have been facing a lot of abuses in the past two to three years. Some of them I could tolerate. But they always go to extreme. All your response that I got two years ago was just like the one your wrote today, it is very saddening to see that from a site moderator, – Tim Feb 9 '19 at 0:29
  • Citing that devious data result is just as horrendous. unix.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5177/… – Tim Feb 9 '19 at 3:45
  • "this violates some notion of fare play in their minds, because it treats their time as less valuable than your own." This site distinguishes (or once distinguished) itself by promoting asking questions, and I felt that was accepting and welcoming, especially for me who has a lot of questions but don't know how to find the solutions myself. You have mentioned what "those" think several times (including this one), and obviously think it is appropriate. – Tim Feb 9 '19 at 17:56
  • "I feel saying this is somewhat justified because you claim to not care about rep, but are making an awful lot of fuss about it." So do you mean that my aim has been gaming for reputations all these years, just like how you all went after reputations in your early years here? My "claims" are more than that, and can you read them all and understand them all? Are you selectively blind-sided? – Tim Feb 9 '19 at 17:58
  • 2
    @Tim Unfortunately, I do no think slm is defaming anyone (just making a point here about the low quality of posts). Rarely I downvote your posts, but most of the time I am compelled to ignore most of them. People going over old posts and downvoting them are serial downvoters, as for people downvoting random questions, they are not. – Rui F Ribeiro Feb 9 '19 at 22:04
  • 8
    @Tim - if you truly just wanted to ask your Q's and get A'ers then none of this would be happening. You'd ignore any voting and merely ask your Q and get whatever A'ers you get. I can't help but think that your continued carrying on about this is rooted in something else? You say you're a serious learner but I don't see you learning from all these interactions w/ many our sites members. It feels like you're somehow enjoying all this negative attention? – slm Feb 9 '19 at 22:47
  • 8
    @Tim I lived 6 years in two countries were I could be fired from my job, deported, imprisoned, kidnapped, tortured or killed for saying the wrong things in the wrong setting or around the wrong people, and frankly, your (ab)use of freedom of speech here annoys me. No one is preventing here writing what you want, also. – Rui F Ribeiro Feb 9 '19 at 22:55
  • 1
    @Rui where you has lived has little to do with how you perceive what is happening here. – Tim Feb 9 '19 at 23:20
  • 7
    @Tim you are not judge, jury and executioner here. It is not up to you telling me where I lived does does not count annoying me you abusing the word freedom, which apparently you do not the meaning of. As other say, you are just being plain rude to people. – Rui F Ribeiro Feb 10 '19 at 11:21

TL;DR: My voting pattern isn't about you. I don't know you, I don't care about you. My voting pattern is based on what I think is best for the site, and the questions that are asked on it.

I'm probably one of the people you think is abusing you. I'm definitely one of the people who tends to vote down your questions, rather than voting up. But not because it's "Tim", but because of the questions.

I only joined the site a couple of years ago (I was between jobs, and bored) so pretty much answered all the questions. It was part of my morning routine; get up, have breakfast, answer a dozen Unix questions, then watch Person of Interest (I'd just found the show and was catching up on Netflix).

Sometimes questions weren't understandable, so I would comment asking for more details, or sometimes the question was almost right, so I would answer them trying to take into account all variations of the meaning that I could think of.

Sometimes the question showed some basic misunderstanding of the concept, and so the question wasn't meaningful. And I'd take that as an opportunity to explain the basics, and how stuff worked. I'd spend hours on it, with examples, proof of concepts, edge cases... I wanted to create the best answers I could, and I had the spare time ;-)

And sometimes, not often, the person writing the question would attack me, and then I'd find the question got edited and rewritten to mean something totally different.

Roll forward to the present. With two years experience under my belt, I notice some common patterns...

An obvious one is people asking for help on their homework. Oh don't I feel dumb for answering those questions, 2 years earlier. Now I just ignore them, or maybe downvote. I can't even be bothered to VTC "duplicate" anymore. (My girlfriend is a director at an Ivy League college, and she tells me the professors there include using StackExchange to answer schoolwork as cheating. Heheheh).

Another obvious one is people asking for answers that can be solved with 3 minutes of google. This is clearly not showing any research effort; they get a downvote.

Then there's those where the question is unclear. If it's only marginal, and I think it can be rescued then I'll comment on it, and maybe downvote. If I think the question is gonna need rewriting from scratch then I'll VTC "unclear".

And finally there's the "WTF does this even mean? When I apple, banana? Huh??" These get a downvote and a VTC.

So I took a look at the questions you've opened and looked at how I responded to them... and, yes, a lot of them have been downvoted or VTC'd.

But not because it was "Tim" asking the question, but because I felt they were bad questions.

Nothing so far has been "Tim" related.

Now a personal comment on you.

When I do leave a comment on your question or try to answer your question, you attack. You play the victim in these threads, but you are the biggest bully I see. You play passive-aggressive (eg your profile comment), you attack people who try to help you, you rewrite questions with nasty remarks in them.

Despite that, I do still try to answer your questions when they are something that doesn't take a 50 page essay (VTC "too broad"). Sometimes you accept them, sometimes you leave comments which make me think you didn't try to understand (e.g. google the concepts mentioned) and just jumped to a "what does XYZ mean?" comment.

I still answer the questions because a goal of SE is to build a library of answers. Whether you appreciate the work doesn't matter. I'm just trying to make it the best library I can, within my limited means.

I'm guessing English isn't your first language, and this may not be helping you (picking the wrong words, so people misunderstand you; phrasing things the wrong way, so people take umbrage). You might want to step away from the keyboard and breathe for 5 minutes before responding; don't say the first thing that comes into your head. Go to the kitchen, get a glass of water, calm down, assume the other person is trying to do the right thing, engage in a construct manner.

In summary, see the TL;DR at the front!

  • 7
    An honest and straighforward answer as simple as it can be, congrats . I could have written myself, except in the part I prefer to (mostly) leave alone Tim posts. Upvoted. The only thing I would add, also for the downvoters here, is that I consider this a reasonable approach, considering our time here is donated for a good cause. – Rui F Ribeiro Feb 11 '19 at 13:33
  • 2
    Well said A'er. Thanks for writing this. – slm Feb 17 '19 at 18:30

All I can say is what I've already told you in answer to your flags: moderators have no way of knowing who voted for whom, have no tools that allow us to affect voting (we can't undo a vote) and are therefore simply not capable of doing anything helpful.

We do have tools that give us a high level overview of voting patterns but there is nothing that indicates anyone has targeted you. We have also asked SE to look into this and they have confirmed that there is no sign of anyone targeting you specifically.

So I am afraid there really isn't anything to be done here and there is nothing malicious going on. It is simply that your questions tend to attract a lot of downvotes, but apparently (as SE tells us) this isn't any one user but a variety of users of the site. In other words, your downvotes are "natural": people see your questions and decide to downvote them.

The only thing you can do is try not to ask questions that people feel deserve downvotes. Remember that not all your questions get downvoted. Indeed many get multiple upvotes.

  • 4
    (some of your questions attract downvotes) - of the 44 tabs of Tim's questions, only a few had negative total scores – Jeff Schaller Feb 8 '19 at 16:50
  • Jeff, There are many posts with net negative votes. Even for those posts not, that is because there are many awesome users who know what is right and wrong and try to counteract the massive amount of downvotes. Dragging the discussion to net votes is to diverge the attention away from the abuse problem. – Tim Feb 8 '19 at 16:53
  • 5
    @Tim I'm sorry, but there simply is no evidence of abuse here. – terdon Feb 8 '19 at 17:06
  • Thanks for writing it out. – Tim Feb 8 '19 at 17:08
  • 3
    @Tim note that you have indeed received votes that have been invalidated in the past. But those were caught by the system and undone. If they are not undone, then there is no evidence of targeting. – terdon Feb 8 '19 at 17:11
  • 2
    I was trying to say that the bulk of Tim's questions were up-voted as "useful and clear", a portion were net-zero, and a minority were voted "not clear or useful". – Jeff Schaller Feb 8 '19 at 18:28
  • 4
    Yes, according to this dirty little dataSE query I whipped up, @Tim has a total of 5552 upvotes and 1231 downvotes. – terdon Feb 8 '19 at 19:23
  • @terdon The number already shows how bad it is. Moreover, you have to include massive number of deleted posts. Moreover, you have to focus on the period since the abuse happened – Tim Feb 8 '19 at 19:35
  • 5
    @Tim as I said, since I have no way of seeing who votes for you, I have no idea when anything started. And, as I also said, SE (who can see) have told me there is no evidence of anyone targeting you. When someone does, their votes are reversed. If they aren't reversed, then there is no targeting. I am afraid the simple truth is that many users find your questions deserving of a downvote. Your overall count is still way higher for upvotes. – terdon Feb 8 '19 at 19:44
  • @terdon SE fault detection algorithm is not god! Don't use it as an excuse for not admitting the real damage! Since when that happen? let me tell you at least two to three years ago. A lot of posts have been automatically deleted, because of downvotes and close votes. You analyzed the data in a skewed way. – Tim Feb 8 '19 at 19:46
  • 16
    @Tim this is getting really tiring. You have decided you are being targeted. The best data I have available show you are not being targeted. If that isn't good enough for you, then there is nothing I can do. – terdon Feb 8 '19 at 19:46
  • Then follow unix.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5177/…, use the data properly, and let the data speak again. You are working in science and statistics field, and do realize how devious your results are, correct? Even based on your previous results, how can you reach the conclusion that there are no abuses in the past one month, one year, two years? – Tim Feb 9 '19 at 3:38
  • "You have decided you are being targeted." I raise the issues of the votes that are abusive, including but not limited to those targeting at me. The abusers can abuse any people and any post that don't fit into their narrow minds. They can bully others for many reasons: don't accept their replies, don't answer their interrogations, ask questions they don't ask. – Tim Feb 9 '19 at 17:46

I think some of this is based on a misunderstanding you have of how Stack Exchange works.

I see in your profile you say:

A post without reply and with net downvote(s) or in closed state will be removed automatically. Posts, regardless of their receptions, can serve as references for reducing future mistakes and questions. If you find them useful/interesting, please consider to

  • upvote, reopen and undelete those mistreated posts;
  • leave posts open, and reopen closed posts

Stack Exchange explicitly states that downvoting and closing posts that don't fit, are off topic, low value, unclear etc is the right thing to do, so they can be cleared away and removed. They don't serve as useful references unless they are well formed. So if your posts are gaining down votes, that is the reason, not because anyone is targeting you specifically.

I have just checked and can see that I have downvoted 4 of your answers - before I even knew who you were from this post. It's because I felt they did not meet the requirements of a well formed, on topic question. I have also upvoted a few of your questions, because they did meet the requirements. That is how this all works.

If you dislike the way votes are cast, then I'm afraid that is not our problem - Stack Exchange is built to allow anonymous up and down votes. And as you can see from your rep - you have got a lot more up than down, so it obviously works.

  • 5
    +1. The intent of the voting system is to drive and encourage higher quality in questions and answers. It's not personal (at least, not supposed to be) – Time4Tea Feb 9 '19 at 11:59
  • 4
    Exactly. I rarely look at who posts something (sometimes I can spot a particular style) unless a meta post like this comes up, or I get mod flags or other indicators that require me to check. – Rory Alsop Feb 9 '19 at 12:12
  • You either do not understand what has happened or worse yet, pretend not to. To politely say, you reply to the wrong post. This post is about abusive votes. – Tim Feb 9 '19 at 12:29
  • 6
    And my point is that there is nothing in any of those searches indicating anything abusive. Your posts generally have positive scores, and the ones with downvotes - well, we know they aren't from an individual looking to cause trouble because there are automated checks for that sort of thing. I think you are reading something into this because you don't have useful data - hint: even mods don't, so you literally cannot be taken seriously if you claim abusive votes. Sorry, but that's just the facts. – Rory Alsop Feb 9 '19 at 12:34
  • What "facts"? in your imagination? – Tim Feb 9 '19 at 12:36
  • 7
    Look Tim, you are just being rude. The facts - neither you nor I can see who voted for what. If you decide that someone is abusing votes, you need to come up with how they could do that and get around the automated checks for these, and how you would have any evidence that this is happening. If you could provide evidence that would be great, however it is not possible, even for us mods. – Rory Alsop Feb 9 '19 at 12:44
  • 8
    @tim note that some of votes you received yesterday have been reversed today. You have previously claimed the vote reversal script doesn't work for you: it does, it just doesn't catch all the downvotes you've received because they aren't all targeted. When someone does indeed target you, those votes are reversed. So of the ones you show in your screenshot, 11 were reversed today. The rest, I'm afraid you need to accept. – terdon Feb 9 '19 at 12:48
  • as rude as your post to me? – Tim Feb 9 '19 at 12:51

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .