With great power comes great responsibility. When you are one of the big ones to promote or prevent whatever, you will be asked for responses.
Even if it frustrates you to give the same answers over and over again, forcing you to repeat yourself constantly, everyone who receives your down-votes expects an explanation. Each case is an individual case and wishes to be treated as such.
The frustration that someone does not accept your answers or justifications is quite understandable. But it does not absolve you from having a debate with anyone who wishes to do so, as much as it tires you insofar as you have taken the first step (DV). So if it tires you and you do not feel like and you do not enjoy it, the logical consequence would be to stop your downvotes (or to reduce them to a level that is bearable for you).
It is already very tiring to have a debate with an individual in which that individual subjectively shows no insight. However, this is not a matter that needs to be judged conclusively as long as communication is desired. Only when all attempts at communication do not lead to a satisfactory result for all participants and someone refuses to communicate, ignores arguments instead of taking them up, could DV be the final action. However, this should be preceded by all possible alternatives.
Downvotes would therefore a.) only need to be distributed by you in the quantity that you yourself can handle b.) want to be debated on a case-by-case basis.
So if you can only handle one account, then it's just one. If there are several, that's fine too. But if their number exceeds your capacity, it is up to you to adapt your behaviour to your capacities.
It is, in my view, illogical to equate downvotes with upvotes because they are two different things. Many of your upvotes do not undo one of your downvotes and vice versa because they are distributed among different users. Each act stands on its own.
Frustration fatigue is not an argument and therefore cannot apply.
Impersonal downvotes cannot exist simply because ultimately your judgement of whether a user produces shit cannot be completely objective. It always has subjective parts and only if you want to assure yourself of the impression that an imagined majority (or importance of certain users) agrees with you and you perceive such as a convention, you can keep the image of "good" about yourself.
Reason is brought to you in the measure in which you send out reason. Unreasonableness is brought to you in as much as you yourself are unreasonable.
If you wish peace or agreement with Xeldal, it must be clear to Xeldal. It presupposes his willingness to be in contact and communication with you.
If he or someone else perceived you as wanting revenge or wanting to be right, it can be that this person will want you to take his revenge for some time longer. Eventually it'll stop (except automation is in play and the involved never come back, die or busy themselves elsewhere).
Is this an emotion which you yourself never felt, never had, never acted out?
If you rarely acted out such emotions they soon will stop against you if you decide to become serene.