Downvoting is anonymous, and there is no way to be sure who voted. Even moderators can't see this information.
As long as it isn't serial voting, there is nothing you or a moderator can do about it.
See also, Is there a way to report drive-by downvotes?
If you think it is sock-puppetry or some other deliberate deception you can flag the answer for moderator's attention.
If it is not deliberate (i.e. it is just some clueless fool fishing for points), you should just downvote and leave a comment pointing out why you think the answer is not helpful. Then the community will usually sort it out through ...
The "it should be closed for another reason…" flag is the flag that should be used to close a question that is not duplicating another question. In fact, the previous flag is "it is a duplicate…."
It is different from the "other (needs ♦ moderator attention)" flag, since the first adds the question to the Close Votes review queue, accessible to all the users ...
It was automatically declined because, in the review queue, the question got 3 votes to keep it open, and 2 to close it.
I would agree that is off-topic, since it makes just a list of features they want, and adds a link to a site that is not even made with Drupal.
should I include a comment explaining what the user did wrong?
Please! Yes, that would be great. Be nice, of course.
will the flag already show the user an automated message?
No, the OP doesn't get notified about a flag on their post.
does the moderator post a comment?
Usually, if the flagger hasn't done so, yes. There may be times when we don't (we ...
The very low quality flag for questions is described as:
This question has severe formatting or content problems. This question is unlikely to be salvageable through editing, and might need to be removed.
A question that is primary opinion-based doesn't necessarily need to be deleted since it is salvageable: It is enough the OP removes that part that ...
The way I use for now is http://scriptish.org/ add-on with AutoReviewComments as user script. Not ideal solution, but it allows me to avoid Greasemonkey and still use AutoReviewComments when it's native add-on disappeared.
I know scriptish is but a fork of greasemonkey, but it does not conflict with my other addons the way original monkey did, so I can live ...
It simply means you marked a flag as invalid, and marking a flag as invalid is shown as disputed, since it doesn't increase the number of helpful flags, but it doesn't increase the number of the declined flags either. That is how the system works.
The moderator message you see is not for your flag, but for the flag you marked as invalid. in fact, the ...
In short, you cannot report down-votes as not being done in good faith; it is not required, since the system already handles suspicious voting patterns, and handle them automatically.
The system doesn't provide details about each single vote a post receives to moderators; it would be difficult to analyze a single vote, and it would not probably make sense, ...
Comments that don't apply anymore should be removed: They are confusing for the future readers, who don't know anymore if the answer is updated, or it still needs to be fixed. That is the reason you can flag comments as obsolete. I would rather delete your comments, and:
Flag the single comments, when the comments are few (e.g. not more than five)
Flag the ...
The limit is a system wide thing; all of the SE sites have the same behaviors, apart from a few minor differences.
There is a limit because the spam/offensive flag gets misapplied and abused on some of the other sites. As your flag weight increases, you get the opportunity to flag more things per day.
The question you take as first example has an issue: It shows the code, it says what the OP wants to achieve, but it doesn't say what the OP is obtaining from that code. Since it's not clear if that is code written from the OP, this could lead users to think the OP just found some code on Internet and wants to be sure it works for the purpose they have, or ...