I'm not one of the (current) downvoters on any of those questions and I can't speak for all of the downvoters, but based on comments I've seen on your questions there are a few reasons you could be receiving the downvotes:
In two of the three questions you linked here, you have only provided various videos and articles containing a number of claims, rather than providing a specific claim via a quote or a timestamp. Because of this, you're either asking users to just trust what you're asking about is a notable claim, or asking them to watch an hour of linked videos to try to figure out the exact thing you want answered. This could give users the impression that you're just asking these question to get them to watch the videos, rather than to actually get an answer to your question.
In all of those questions, you're asking something that we likely can't provide a meaningful answer to. Each of the questions is about a claim of divine/supernatural intervention, and those sorts of questions have three possible answers:
- There is a mundane explanation that could apply - Answers addressing this will mostly consist of "it's impossible because..." which isn't very satisfactory nor will it likely change anyone's mind
- The divine/supernatural is real - This something people have been researching for millennia, and I doubt we'll finally be the ones to crack the case
- The claimants are lying - we could disprove some of the claimants, but there will always be more who provide less evidence of dishonesty
Your comments on the few answers you've received make it seem like you already have an answer in mind that you're looking for, and won't accept any other. In the third question you linked here (about claims of spontaneous prosthodontics), you have two answers:
- The first answer provides the mundane explanation for how gold is formed naturally, and why it's impossible for it to form in people's mouths (see option 1 in my last point). In response to this answer, you said that this answer only addresses "known mechanisms", and that "gold teeth may still be spontaneously appearing at faith healing services by other (unknown) means". If you're not satisfied with an answer that addresses what is known about the physical world, then that suggests you already have a supernatural explanation in mind and are just looking for a confirmation.
- The second answer addresses one of the people who claimed they had a spontaneous gold tooth appear in their mouth, providing evidence it was done by a dentist and a confession that the claimant was lying (see option 3 in my last point). As expected, after being shown evidence one person was lying, your response was essentially 'but what about everyone else?'. As I said before, we'd be able to disprove some number of the claimants, either through dental records or confessions, but there will always be more whose medical records aren't publicly available, and who will provide nothing but their word. For every answer like this you'll always be able to say 'but what about this one?', which again gives the impression that you're looking for a certain answer and will accept no others.
In short, you're asking questions that we can't satisfactorily answer, are linking a lot of videos/articles without saying how they're important, and responding to answers in a way that suggests you won't accept anything less than supernatural evidence. All of this gives the impression that you're asking these questions just to spread these claims rather than see them explained or debunked, and this could be why you're receiving the downvotes.
However, clearly there is a way to ask at least some of the types of questions you're interested in in a way that is well-received by the community, and receive answers that thoroughly address the claims. After the mixed response to your first question you re-asked it on the Psychology SE site, where it got many positive votes and received several well-written, thorough answers. Those answers are the sort of thing you could see here on Skeptics (assuming users here had the same psychology expertise, of course), so the only real here issue was the way you asked the question.
If you limited future questions to a single, specific, explicit claim (for example, 'this person claimed to feel a burning sensation' vs 'here are 16 videos of people claiming stuff'), and if you appear more willing to accept the fact that most of these questions will likely have boring/unsatisfactory explanation, then that could help improve the negative reputation that you seem to have gained.