[klez]

I stand corrected on the fact that there's no ban procedure[0]. But there's also a provision that this ban lasts 6 months, not indefinitely.

And it's not about questions getting closed, it's about downvotes.

And from that to saying that the procedure is opaque, I'd say you'll have to provide some sources about that.

[0] https://stackoverflow.com/help/question-bans

[Arnt]

The procedure is opaque because:

He posts questions that are duplicates but are only obvious duplicates if you're have a PhD in quantum statistics. And he attracts downvotes and gets demerits. Most SO users don't have PhDs, therefore most of the the downvotes and demerits must be due to something mystifying.

The procedure is not opaque because:

Well, maybe his questions may be regarded differently by other people, and then it makes sense.

There's a rule on meta.stackoverflow.com that each such complaint must point to an example question. A good rule.

[cybersnowflake]

Oh they definitely downvote you simply for closed questions.Which you'd know if you regularly used the site or didn't assume that I was unfamiliar with it. Also the bans might be temporary but the demerits last for years at least. I know because I have ones from 2016. Of course most of what you and I are might say about actual policy isn't certain since its all hidden. The mark of bad moderation policy is hidden/vague policy but the overwhelming practice in most places including here.