My thoughts—since you have not expressed any wishes/requests/questions on this matter, I don't know if they are of any use to you—are:
Taking the fact that a contribution refers to OpTeX as a criterion per se for downvoting—not upvoting and downvoting are different things—does not seem rational to me.
I find it difficult to comment on irrational behavior, especially irrational behavior of others.
Since voting behavior seems not always to be oriented to the matter at hand/sometimes seems not to be based on rationality/objectivity, but sometimes seems to be more a matter of the amygdala being triggered one way or the other—in the context of voting-behavior you also find keywords like "sympathy-likes" which means that with some people voting behavior also depends on the level of antipathy or sympathy they feel for the author, I form my opinion about the quality of a contribution not by looking at the voting results, but by reading it.
I feel that our interactions on this platform did not start all too well, which I am not innocent of, and which, by the way, I would like to change.
IIRC I did not downvote any of your contributions. IIRC I never saw a reason to do so, as they use to be focused on helping to solve problems and/or presenting facts accurately.
With the three examples you linked, I notice that downvotes were made, but there are no comments referring to the downvotes and explaining why they were made.
I think this is not good style on the part of those who made the downvotes.
I think that those who downvote should leave a comment as to why:
A downvote is a way of stating that you believe the downvoted statement deserves criticism. Part of freedom of speech is being allowed to express this in an acceptable way.
But one should justify this rationally. The practice of just conveying by anonymously clicking a button that there is someone who finds something worthy of criticism, but not what and why, does not necessarily contribute to an exchange of ideas/views that might lead to something constructive.