I too - when I started out - felt that I was encountering such behavior with no recourse to correct it. I admit that it is very frustrating and discouraging. Especially to a site dedicated to the precision of science - this perceived behavior seems to go against all that science ideally represents - the honest evaluation of all worthy questions and hypothesis.
To relate the behavior to higher systems of knowledge, whenever there is a community that does not fear the consequence of behavior, it appears as an indication of the quality of the answers being given by that community. There is some chance that an answer highly praised is in fact outright incorrect.
As there is "noise" and "defect" in almost every physical evaluation, so too you might notice imperfection - especially when just starting out.
So I appeal to try to understand these higher systems of knowledge - reserving this site for structured social interaction; I just keep on writing and eventually these issues are not the main signal but rather the noise in the feedback that I receive on my posted questions and answers.
You can always set up your own site void of such issues. Your website might be a handy reference on this site to your "unbiased" answer as you see it - using links that generally do not raise as much site ire as full text. I found that approach also good to start out. I have gotten around all the issues so far - so now that my reputation is good enough that such perceived characters no longer want to take that approach. The initial frustration also helped me look at other answers and learn how to make my answer better - and this is main benefit: to see one's own imperfection also, and to build and remedy one's own defects too!
Note: I would like to address some of the comments, but I am unable to comment without a reputation of 50 that I currently lack. The comments - that the question can be traced to - seem unreasonable to me, a regular simple user of the system. I cannot find any question of J. Rahman's where it can be shown that he up-voted, down-voted, or did anything whatsoever for that matter. When I checked his profile, only this one question shows. Using such "proof" does not seem like any sort of basis to punish him by suspending him from the site. He has done absolutely nothing in public - as far as the common site-user like me can tell. I did not even see any of his questions and answers aside from this question being available from his user profile.
Comment #1 in question: The question is easily identifiable, and any
10K user can see the deleted question and its author, so you have
effectively accused a user of downvoting you. Claims that you aren't
singling out an individual are disingenuous at best. As for evidence,
there are no comments suggesting that the user in question is
offended. If I had answered a question then realised it was a
duplicate I would also delete my answer (or move it to the duplicate)
then vote to close. In this case I don't know enough about the subject
to decide if your question is a duplicate or not. – John Rennie Jun 13
at 8:16
Response:
" The question is easily identifiable, and any 10K user can see the
deleted question and its author, so you have effectively accused a
user of down-voting you." It is a very elite group (almost
self-proclaimed judges of the community) that has 10K or higher
reputation. I have no way of making such identification - and I
assumed that science operates on the basis of equal access to the
relevant facts to come to a decision. Here, clearly, science does not
work that way. The facts are not generally accessible for the common
reader to make an informed decision.
Now I consider another comment I see here.
Comment #2 - A Veiled Threat to the Author of this Posted Question
I can't see any evidence for your belief that the [person answering]
acted maliciously. He has indeed suggested a duplicate, but that
doesn't seem malicious to me. You don't have any evidence that he
down-voted you. There is nothing in the comments to suggest that he
has. Incidentally, note that accusing others of [down-voting] you is
regarded as impolite at best and grounds for a suspension in extreme
cases. – John Rennie Jun 13 at 8:03
Response to #2 Comment Threatening the Question Author
"Incidentally, note that accusing others of [down-voting] you is
regarded as impolite at best and grounds for a suspension in extreme
cases. – John Rennie Jun 13 at 8:03" This seems like a threat, using
terms like "suspension" when in fact what was being asked in the
question being asked is, "How can such bad behavior be dealt with?" I
also receive down votes that I do not understand, and I have some
ideas on how such votes might be dealt with. A site author has to be
open to feedback, and sometimes that feedback the author cannot
understand. That is part of being an author. One has to roll with
the negative. However, I think the best approach for an author is to
get together a community that can "independently" evaluate the
situation and that can ask questions, comments, and that is also
willing as a community to deal with the negative, to provide more
constructive criticism instead of immediately having to comment
"suspension in extreme cases". We need to focus on not punishment but
more on guidance of the new-comers and uniformed. The new authors
especially need a warm welcome and help - if this site is able to reach
its potential, and not the opposite!