As the research recorded here in the other answers shows, there is no indication of rage, revenge, or malicious intent here. The user appears to be a cooperating citizen who distinguishes good and bad content and is willing to take actions to provide feedback in some cases. (Look at his/her voting structure.)

I see this incident as confirming a theory I had already when learning that accept rate would no longer be displayed, predicting some drop in total acceptance rates.

The (only?) reason of asking a question is getting people see it and provide relevant information on it (answers, comments, votes, votes and comments on various answers, views). The frequency of all such events goes down when the question is considered to have an accepted answer.

Supposing that the user does not feel bored by the prospect of getting even more interaction related to his/her questions, we are seeing prima facie economic behavior here.

I know that unaccepting also entails the loss of 2 points of reputation per answer, which might kind of compensate for most people, not speaking of all kinds of ethical, aesthetical, or interaction quality reasons against completely stopping to accept.

• This user may not know that they are also losing reputation
• This user may not care that they are also losing reputation
• This user may expect that the higher exposure of their questions will lead to a mixed voting traffic more than compensating for this loss in the long run.

Who knows.

[Edit: only now I noticed that user's comment "Please consider that as self-vandalism." Good, this won't be a very frequent motivation here.]

Maybe the January change to displaying accept rates was a little overdone.

After enough time passes, we should check the database to see how widespread this slightly damaging behavior is and see whether there we have a problem with making the aggregated accept rate completely unaccessible to other users, or not.

TL;DR: No rage is indicated. Lower accept rates may be appearing as advantageous, since January 2013. People prefer interaction to tumbleweed.

As the research recorded here in the other answers shows, there is no indication of rage, revenge, or malicious intent here. The user appears to be a cooperating citizen who distinguishes good and bad content and is willing to take actions to provide feedback in some cases. (Look at his/her voting structure.)

I see this incident as confirming a theory I had already when learning that accept rate would no longer be displayed, predicting some drop in total acceptance rates.

The (only?) reason of asking a question is getting people see it and provide relevant information on it (answers, comments, votes, votes and comments on various answers, views). The frequency of all such events goes down when the question is considered to have an accepted answer.

Supposing that the user does not feel bored by the prospect of getting even more interaction related to his/her questions, we are seeing prima facie economic behavior here.

I know that unaccepting also entails the loss of 2 points of reputation per answer, which might kind of compensate for most people, not speaking of all kinds of ethical, aesthetical, or interaction quality reasons against completely stopping to accept.

• This user may not know that they are also losing reputation
• This user may not care that they are also losing reputation
• This user may expect that the higher exposure of their questions will lead to a mixed voting traffic more than compensating for this loss in the long run.

Who knows.

[Edit: only now I noticed that user's comment "Please consider that as self-vandalism." Good, this won't be a very frequent motivation here.]

Maybe the January change to displaying accept rates was a little overdone.

After enough time passes, we should check the database to see how widespread this slightly damaging behavior is and see whether there we have a problem with making the aggregated accept rate completely unaccessible to other users, or not.

As the research recorded here in the other answers shows, there is no indication of rage, revenge, or malicious intent here. The user appears to be a cooperating citizen who distinguishes good and bad content and is willing to take actions to provide feedback in some cases. (Look at his/her voting structure.)

I see this incident as confirming a theory I had already when learning that accept rate would no longer be displayed, predicting some drop in total acceptance rates.

The (only?) reason of asking a question is getting people see it and provide relevant information on it (answers, comments, votes, votes and comments on various answers, views). The frequency of all such events goes down when the question is considered to have an accepted answer.

Supposing that the user does not feel bored by the prospect of getting even more interaction related to his/her questions, we are seeing prima facie economic behavior here.

I know that unaccepting also entails the loss of 2 points of reputation per answer, which might kind of compensate for most people, not speaking of all kinds of ethical, aesthetical, or interaction quality reasons against completely stopping to accept.

• This user may not know that they are also losing reputation
• This user may not care that they are also losing reputation
• This user may expect that higher exposure of their questions will lead to a mixed voting traffic more than compensating for this loss in the long run.

Who knows.

Maybe the January change to displaying accept rates was a little overdone.

After enough time passes, we should check the database to see how widespread this slightly damaging behavior is and see whether there we have a problem with making the aggregated accept rate completely unaccessible to other users, or not.

As the research recorded here in the other answers shows, there is no indication of rage, revenge, or malicious intent here. The user appears to be a cooperating citizen who distinguishes good and bad content and is willing to take actions to provide feedback in some cases. (Look at his/her voting structure.)

I see this incident as confirming a theory I had already when learning that accept rate would no longer be displayed, predicting some drop in total acceptance rates.

The (only?) reason of asking a question is getting people see it and provide relevant information on it (answers, comments, votes, votes and comments on various answers, views). The frequency of all such events goes down when the question is considered to have an accepted answer.

Supposing that the user does not feel bored by the prospect of getting even more interaction related to his/her questions, we are seeing prima facie economic behavior here.

I know that unaccepting also entails the loss of 2 points of reputation per answer, which might kind of compensate for most people, not speaking of all kinds of ethical, aesthetical, or interaction quality reasons against completely stopping to accept.

• This user may not know that they are also losing reputation
• This user may not care that they are also losing reputation
• This user may expect that the higher exposure of their questions will lead to a mixed voting traffic more than compensating for this loss in the long run.

Who knows.

[Edit: only now I noticed that user's comment "Please consider that as self-vandalism." Good, this won't be a very frequent motivation here.]

Maybe the January change to displaying accept rates was a little overdone.

After enough time passes, we should check the database to see how widespread this slightly damaging behavior is and see whether there we have a problem with making the aggregated accept rate completely unaccessible to other users, or not.