Himarm was suspended today after making a joke that he targeted another user with 100 downvotes. He was obviously kidding, because his profile shows that he has made a total of 107 downvotes in two years on the site.
Unless we're supposed to believe that all but 7 of those votes were for the same person, he clearly didn't target anyone. Shouldn't a suspension for voting irregularities be based on evidence more compelling than a silly comment?
He posted screenshots of his downvote history, which seems to confirm that he hasn't targeted anyone:
In this history, the user he jokingly claimed to have targeted was downvoted not 100 times, but only eight to ten times. The history shows 73 total downvotes, presumably because it omits deleted questions and answers.