@amWhy : I do not favor low-quality questions. That is simply your misunderstanding of my position.

@amWhy : I am not the one who thinks he is omniscient.

@SimplyBeautifulArt In situations like this, it is best to first wait until the daily automatic "serial voting" script runs, which runs at 03:00UTC.

It looks like nothing was invalidated, which means that the script didn't identify it as a serial event (the script is fairly permissive, imo). As a mod I cannot do much, and cannot see who was responsible for these downvotes. But at least those three downvotes in about one minute to your three highest scoring posts seems suspicious. I've passed along a request to the CMs to invalidate.

@MathematicsAminPhysics they increase the likelihood of a post ban, but I do not believe it does any more than that.

@arjafi thanks!

@MathematicsAminPhysics Have you considered taking any course of action to improve any of your posts?

@arjafi I can understand why it would be fairly permissive. If I get interested in a user, I may open several of their posts, and I would be likely to start with their highly voted posts. Then I would likely vote on each of them according to whether I found them useful, etc., in context. Of course, I am more likely to "serially upvote" (if you can call it that) than downvote.

Or to give some mixture of down and up votes.

I came here to query a declined flag. But on closer reading of the question, I found it could make sense (although it really wasn't self-explanatory at first). It had also been edited since I flagged it, since I commented as well as flagging it.

I guess I shouldn't worry about a single declined flag, right?