This question already has an answer here:
I see that this has been marked as a duplicate, I don't think it is a duplicate, the linked question is about deleting down-voted answers for the purpose of removing negative reputation. This question is about deleting the answer to shed the down-vote and then posting higher quality content.
It seems as people are voting their agreement or disagreement here. Let me encourage voters to consider the value of
- this discussion
- the transparency of the poster
Questioner explained what they were doing, and inquired about an error.
No one else had responded, so I quickly pulled up the help on the function as I saw it used and quickly typed a one-liner to explain the source of the error. I begin furiously editing/elaborating as I see another answer pop up, offering an alternative and I see a downvote on my answer. Spirit undiminished, I continued, explaining how to check for the source of the error, and thus how to avoid it. I edited further, I demonstrated how to recreate the error.
I then see the other answerer has identically adopted my approach to his mishmash, and although I don't have a monopoly on Python's best practices, a bit of attribution/credit would be apropos.
An Underhanded Move:
Feeling now quite frustrated with the effort I have spent, I perceive a way to overturn the single downvote (on what was now substantially an entirely different answer). I copy the source of my answer, delete the old answer, and paste it in as a new one.
The End Result:
I see as I have composed this I have earned an upvote on my full answer, although the other respondent got the best of me with an accepted answer. If the upvote came from the original downvoter, then I am no better for the deletion and replacement. If the upvote came from someone else, I am better for the deletion, for I would otherwise be at zero and down 2 rep points.
The Final Question:
Was I right to act as I did, in principle? If not, do circumstances mitigate the harm? Or is the point infinitesimal, and I would be better off trying to fit angels on the heads of pins, and Stackoverflow is working just as it should? Or perhaps we just don't want to talk transparently about how people abuse the system to their advantage?
A Final Conclusion After Many Responses:
The community has decided that although the Stackoverflow mechanisms allow for this tactic, it is viewed as underhanded and abusive, and a user being found to do so is likely to be punished, if not officially, then by the efforts of those who have discovered him.