I tried to add a kylo ren tag to the site and was shot down multiple times by a moderator. I was told he's not a main character, we don't do character tags, etc. A user here said nasty things to me, flagged it multiple times, and it was taken out by a moderator multiple times who threatened me.

I wonder if there's a way to pull that discussion back up. It was in comment lines I believe.

In any event, now the question I had that was closed, was re-opened by a moderator.

What bothers me the most at this point. Is that now somebody else has added that tag when I tried to on at least three separate occasions, they own the tag, and they have 28 questions now associated with it.

And worst of all my question was just edited with the Kylo-Ren tag that this other user posted.

I want that tag, I want an apology from that moderator, and I want the discussion posted in Meta.

Anyway to do such a thing?

  • 15
    Nobody "owns" a tag.
    – phantom42
    Dec 28, 2015 at 23:36
  • 4
    You are taking this way too personally. I don't know what happened to the tag, but who cares?
    – Andres F.
    Dec 28, 2015 at 23:37
  • 6
    Before anyone can help you, you'll have to explain what you mean when you say you "want" the tag and what you expect someone to do to "give" it to you...
    – KutuluMike
    Dec 28, 2015 at 23:38
  • 5
    and also, that tag is terrible, I wouldn't get too attached to it.
    – KutuluMike
    Dec 28, 2015 at 23:38
  • 1
    a few users are adamant to keep the kylo ren tag, but the upcoming tag cleanse is probably going to wipe it out regardless, which is why some of us haven't been proactive at killing it so far.
    – phantom42
    Dec 28, 2015 at 23:39
  • I was the one who (re)created that tag, but I was completely unaware you'd tried to create it before. I wasn't trying to step on your toes or anything - sorry if you were pissed off. But as @phantom42 says, nobody "owns" a tag - anybody can put that tag on a question (or remove it), and it's nothing to do with me. (I do support its existence, but it looks like I may have to argue strongly in order not to get it 'killed'.)
    – Rand al'Thor Mod
    Dec 29, 2015 at 1:41
  • 3
    @MikeEdenfield - very simple. The negative impact on people who consider a tag important from removing it is far far in excess of the negative impact on the people who dislike extra tags from the tag's existence. By pretty much any and all reasonable ethical system, the former people should win for there to be a just community. Dec 29, 2015 at 3:41
  • 4
    @MikeEdenfield - my uneducated guess is that it may refer to a badge one gets from creating a tag that has 50 answers on it. Dec 29, 2015 at 12:34
  • 6
    @JakeGould - there is explicitly a site badge for creating a "good" tag (one with IIRC 50+ questions). THIS MEANS IT IS CONSIDERED A USEFUL SITE ACTIVITY, first of all. This also means that by deleting a tag someone created, you steal their chance to obtain that badge. Dec 29, 2015 at 12:39
  • 3
    @DVK You also steal their chance to obtain the Peer Pressure badge by deleting crappy non-answers. The point being...?
    – TARS
    Dec 29, 2015 at 13:36
  • 2
    @TARS - the point is that it's an antisocial behavior that negatively impacts a user, and has no meaningful benefit to the site (the tag wasn't hurting anyone and was a correct one) Dec 29, 2015 at 13:53
  • 3
    if you have feelings either way regarding character tags, please feel free to chime in on the meta question about criteria for creation.
    – phantom42
    Dec 29, 2015 at 14:52
  • 2
    JMFB: please see the updates in both mine and @Null's answers. If you feel that there's still unresolved issues re: Null's action, I would ask if you would agree to have a 3-way separate conversation with him, and me as a 3d party uninvolved mediator. It seems you and him both have perceptions that are based on mutual lack of 100% info and make things seem more negative than they are/were from both sides. Jan 3, 2016 at 5:54
  • JMFB - also, to clarify, I'm NOT AT ALL sure as to what happened on the other 2 times your tag was deleted, other than it was not @null, so his action was only a minor part of the whole pattern. Jan 4, 2016 at 17:10

3 Answers 3


I know everyone likes to hate people who complain of unfair treatment, but in this case there really was unfair treatment.

  • The user created a plausibly valid tag (on another user's question).

    • By that time it was clear from all the released material that Kylo Ren is a major character. I shall avoid posting 3-page-long bullet list of why, to avoid spoiling people.

    • While there may be valid arguments made on the side of the tag not being valid[3], there are very valid arguments on the side of it being valid, and therefore NOT unanimously and unchallengingly worth-deleting without debate and discussion. This Q&A is not the correct place to settle that argument, but what's important to what happened is the fact that it's a meaningful disagreement on merits, not a unanimous and obvious "junk" tag conclusion.

  • The tag was challenged without knowing this fact, and without checking this fact (e.g. on main site or Meta), and deleted by a moderator without seeking the site consensus on Meta, as is appropriate for tag deletion

    • As per the challenger, the basis of the challenge was 2-fold: (#1) he considered the tag invalid (as per above, I greatly disagree with him on merits of that judgement call, but it's his right to make that judgement call); and (#2) considered it inapplicable to THAT specific question (another judgement call, that I am ambivalent about, I can see valid reasoning to either support or oppose that call on merits, and think it was far more correct than #1).

    • As per comments from moderator, the FORMER basis of the challenge (validity of the tag itself) was the basis for fulfilling the flag. As such, I believe it necessitated a Meta discussion prior to deletion and should have been rejected until such Meta discussion was resolved. (For hypothetical completeness - I may have arrived at the opposite conclusion regarding moderator's action if the reason for the deletion was the second basis of the flag - question content, including tags, is definitely within moderator purview and ordinarily wouldn't need to be Meta-discussed. I may have disagreed with moderator's judgement but NOT his procedure then.)

  • Regardless of the intentions of the action, the practical - if unintended - effect of this action was that the user was deprived of an official, SE-promoted, activity (creating new good tag) - and as a consequence of that:

    • user lost a chance to earn a rare badge awarded for creating a tag that is used by 50+ questions[1]

  • This was compounded when - according to the OP, his OTHER 2 tries to create the tag were also rejected. I do not possess the knowledge of how to dig through the data to verify that, or to see the circumstances, except that I know that OTHER people were involved than the user who challenged the tag's first instance - so this is a pattern of events that transcends a single user's one judgement call.

  • Then, to add insult to injury, someone else created that tag and will get the badge that the OP was deprived of.

The only correct way to make things right is to:

  • Apologize to the OP for the rash action of deleting a tag without ANY community debate (which would have resulted in people - myself included - being able to present evidence that it's a major character and worth its own tag). A brief comments thread doesn't count, as few people likely saw it.

    UPDATE: One person who was involved (of MANY) - @Null apologized in his answer, which I deeply appreciate and would like to urge the OP to accept that apology, as no damage to OP was intended and it was all done in good faith by @Null, with negative outcome being unanticipated and unforeseen.

    This does not change the poor action of other people, both the moderator (who should have seeked community consensus before acting on that flag, and some users on this Meta thread who behaved in a hugely unconstructive[2] manner - and no, the fact that OP's wording wasn't anywhere near 100% constructive is NOT A GOOD EXCUSE); as well as as-yet-unknown-details of who did what in the other 2 cases where the user's attempt to create a tag was rejected.

  • Restore the opportunity to get the badge to the user. While a bit drastic edit-wise, it's doable:

    1. delete the current tag, from all quetsions, and let the OP re-create it once it's gone from the database.

    2. As an alternative, ask SE team to change the tag's creator in the back-end database to the OP.

[1] - I know 10 people piled on a bandwagon and upvoted a snarky "nobody owns a tag" comment to the OP (where were the moderators enforcing "civility" then?), but that badge indicates that the tag creator IS treated differently by the site, and is rewarded. That's not "ownership", but it is user-specific. My strong opinion is that this is what the OP meant but they chose an incorrect term to express it which had unfortunately negative context

[2] - One of the comments on the question explicitly called the user "nuts". IT WAS UPVOTED. Not flagged and deleted, upvoted.

[3] - Obviously, I'm on the "tag is valid" side of the disagreement, but I acknowledge that arguments against it have validity despite my considering those arguments incorrect

  • 1
    I linked to the relevant meta discussion on character tags when the tag was challenged. It was debatable whether the kylo-ren tag would meet our guidelines, especially since it was before the movie came out. In the absence of a clear case that Kylo Ren did meet our guidelines, it was up to JMFB to post a meta question to see what the community thought. I invited JMFB to post a meta discussion, but he declined to do so until now.
    – Null Mod
    Dec 29, 2015 at 17:22
  • 6
    @Null - that was YOUR PERSONAL OPINION evaluating the guidelines (and it would be nice if you finally admitted that you were wrong in that call, given how many KR questions we have now). There was no guideline that "Kylo Ren" was a bad tag - which would require a new Meta post. And no, it is NOT up to the tag creator to post a meta question asking permission to create a tag. That is not how this site, or SE, ever worked. The ONLY thing required to create a new tag is enough rep, and preferably, knowing the subject matter about the tag to back up why it's warranted (which the OP had) Dec 29, 2015 at 17:24
  • 2
    It was my personal opinion, as well as (at the time) another high rep user and a mod. And, based on the comments to this meta discussion, it is also the opinion of at least another high rep user or two. Given this disagreement, an existing meta discussion on guidelines for such tags, and the fact that the tag wasn't appropriate for that question anyway, the appropriate course was for JMFB to ask on meta.
    – Null Mod
    Dec 29, 2015 at 17:27
  • 1
    @Null - a mod had no business getting involved into that in the first place without a Meta discussion. Which is a problem endemic to this site. And having 1-2 high rep users isn't a valid argument due to selection bias. Many other high rep users likely were NOT participating in those comments (I sure wasn't aware of them till today), and hopefully you'll grant me that I know a thing or 2 about TFA Dec 29, 2015 at 17:33
  • @Null - whether that tag belonged on that question is... debatable. If it was edited to be less Kylo-centric (as it can be), yes I can see how it isn't needed on it. But in its current form, it does mention Kylo Ren, as does an answer, so it's appropriate there too. Dec 29, 2015 at 17:34
  • @Null ... however, according to the OP, it was also deleted from other questions as well. Given the attitudes around, I tend to believe that's true even without digging on data.SE Dec 29, 2015 at 17:35
  • I flagged for a mod to avoid an edit war. JMFB added the tag back after I removed it, so I flagged for a mod to resolve the dispute (I hope you'll agree this was the correct course of action to avoid an edit war).
    – Null Mod
    Dec 29, 2015 at 17:40
  • 2
    The question is not about Kylo Ren, as stated by the asker: "...who trained this Ren guy? That's not actually my question, though, just the inspiration." If you really think the question should have the tag just because Kylo Ren was mentioned, you end up with the absurd situation in which I would have a score of 40 on the tag and I don't even know much about him. And feel free to dig around data.SE all you want -- I only deleted the tag from that one question.
    – Null Mod
    Dec 29, 2015 at 17:42
  • 1
    @Null - Typically, the etuiquette is to defer to the OP, not to involve the moderator, absent an egregious issue that absolutely requires a fix and a moderator attention. What you did was an equivalent of calling the cops on someone who painted their door the wrong color - AND they got their door broken as a result. Dec 29, 2015 at 17:52
  • 2
    The OP never added the Kylo Ren tag himself, so removing the tag is deferring to the OP.
    – Null Mod
    Dec 29, 2015 at 18:05
  • 1
    JMFB added the tag, but he was not the OP of that question.
    – Null Mod
    Dec 29, 2015 at 18:17
  • 3
    Actually, we do have some guidelines for requirements for character tags. These guidelines existed before this whole thing started. My guess is that since Null was aware of them (having commented on the post), much of his determination was based on that conversation.
    – phantom42
    Dec 29, 2015 at 19:12
  • 3
    neither here nor there. guidelines existed, and he seemed to be acting in good faith and according to them, even if he was wrong.
    – phantom42
    Dec 29, 2015 at 20:13
  • 2
    @DVK The disagreement over the guidelines is precisely why I encouraged JMFB to post a meta discussion. I knew Kylo Ren was the main antagonist of Episode VII, but for all I knew (and still know) Kylo Ren will only appear in one movie and be killed off, sort of like Darth Maul (who does not have a tag). The dispute occurred months before Episode VII was released, and it's a stretch to expect the community to "know the canon" regarding a character before that character has even appeared in any released canon media.
    – Null Mod
    Dec 29, 2015 at 20:29
  • 1
    I agree that the better approach would be to post a new meta question on the specific tag. That is what I regret about this incident -- if I'd done that, none of what followed would have happened. I still think JMFB should have posted the meta question himself since I linked to the existing guidelines and it seemed he was fine with the removal of the tag (he said he "agreed" and "I like you"). I thought he would have posted a meta question if he really cared. But I wish now that I'd taken the initiative and posted a meta question anyway.
    – Null Mod
    Jan 4, 2016 at 17:18

(I have no dog in this race, I'm not a moderator, I wasn't involved in any of this, [insert more disclaimers here])

We don't have Han Solo, Leia Organa, C-3PO, R2D2, Palpatine, or Anakin Skywalker tags. We do seem to have (91 questions), (27 questions), and (56 questions).

We don't have Hermione Granger or Ron Weasley tags. We do have , but that doesn't count, because the work as a whole is named after its main protagonist. There's also (247 questions) and (95 questions).

We don't have Aragorn, Frodo, or Samwise tags. We do have (98 questions) and (91 questions).

Bottom line is, I see no rhyme or reason to which characters have tags and which don't. If our site policy is "no character tags", then we have some major cleaning up to do. If that is not our site policy, then I'm not sure why you weren't allowed to create a Kylo Ren tag, unless it requires more reputation than you have?1

1 I know the privileges say 300 reputation for creating tags, but it also says 2500 rep for creating tag synonyms, and we all know that not even God can create tag synonyms, except on the second Tuesday in May if the moon is 3/4 full and the necessary incantations are performed, and no, nobody knows what those incantations are.

One major clarification though: nobody owns a tag. Each tag has a "top users" page, but that comes from questions which use the tag. If you have questions which you feel ought to have the label, now that someone else has slipped it through the cracks, you can go ahead and add it where you'd like, but be aware that enough people are opposed to character tags that it might just go away again in a few days.

Edit: As DVK points out, there is a rare and hard to get badge for creating a tag, so in that sense, the person who creates a tag is "special". I'm not sure how to correct this situation at this point.


Since the Kylo Ren tag created by another user is now being used I regret that you were denied a Taxonomist badge. However, I am not responsible for the deletion of the tag you created "at least three times" and I stand by all my actions regarding the tag.

The conversation you are referring to might be the one you and I had a few months ago, though our conversation might have been one of the other "three separate occasions" you tried to add the tag. If you are referring to our conversation, I do not think I said anything to you that could be considered "nasty". In full disclosure, that conversation is still posted in the comments to one of your answers:

Kylo Ren is too minor of a character to have his own tag. Please don't create a tag for him. – Null Sep 10 at 15:01

@Null isn't he the main antagonist of the film? Darth Vader and Darth Sidious both have tags. – JMFB Sep 10 at 15:03

Possibly, but only of one film in the entire franchise. He is currently far too minor of a character to have his own tag. Only a few very major characters have tags. We don't have tags for Han Solo and Leia, for example. Please roll back your edit again or I'll flag for a mod. – Null Sep 10 at 15:08

See meta on character tags. – Null Sep 10 at 15:11

Vader and Sidious are both major characters who have appeared in six films and countless other sources (books, cartoon, video games, etc.). None of that is true for Kylo Ren. – Null Sep 10 at 15:15

@Null Han Solo and Leia are not the main antagonists or protagonists of a film or series. Luke Skywalker, Darth Vader, Sidious, etc. are. Kylo Ren is the Darth Vader of the upcoming movies. Read about him. The tag was approved fyi, so flag it if you like. And commanding somebody to rollback an edit or you're going to flag a mod sounds like a threat and highly inappropriate. And you gave me a link to one person's meta answer with 3 upvotes? That's hardly site policy. – JMFB Sep 10 at 15:18

Flagged. Ask on meta whether or not we need the tag if you really think we need it. – Null Sep 10 at 15:23

I did not command you, I said please. Since we are in disagreement the appropriate action is to flag for a mod to avoid an edit war. – Null Sep 10 at 15:32

@Null agreed. I like you and your contributions. This is nothing personal. Can't wait for the new movie to come out fyi. Hope it's more like 4 or 5 then 1, 2, or 3. – JMFB Sep 10 at 15:47

@JMFB Quit making the Kylo Ren tag. We know virtually nothing about whether or not it will be appropriate. At best, we'll know once The Force Awakens is released. – Keen♦ Sep 10 at 16:15

@Keen made it one time. It was approved. That's all I did. No need to give directives. – JMFB Sep 10 at 20:03

@JMFB You've done it twice, ergo the directive. – Keen♦ Sep 11 at 1:13

As I explained in the comments, I flagged for a mod in order to avoid a tag edit war. I edited the question to delete the Kylo Ren tag once and then posted my first comment above. After you added the tag back again, I asked you to please roll it back or I would flag for a mod to resolve the dispute. You refused, so I flagged. The mod and another user agreed with me.

I also posted a link to the relevant meta discussion on character tags and suggested you post a new meta question so the community could decide whether to add the tag.

I still think Kylo Ren is too minor of a character to have his own tag since he has only appeared in one movie out of the entire Star Wars franchise. (I haven't seen The Force Awakens yet, so please don't spoil whether Kylo Ren is alive or not at the end of the movie. If he's alive, he may eventually become a major enough character to deserve his own tag. If he's dead, he'll probably never deserve his own tag.)

Although I removed the tag from the question you answered, I did not systematically remove the tag from all questions on the site so that it would be deleted entirely. I only removed it from that one question, and that question should not have the Kylo Ren tag even if community consensus is that the tag should exist because that question is not about Kylo Ren. The original text of the question was:

[Title] Sith without masters

So the new Star Wars film has a Sith in it, his name's Kylo Ren. Hope I'm not spoiling this for anyone, but it's pretty obvious from the trailers that he's a Sith Lord of some kind, with his menacing red light saber and scary mask.

So if the last Sith died in Return of the Jedi, that got me wondering who trained this Ren guy.

That's not actually my question, just the inspiration. I want to know if there's any evidence in books etc. of any Sith who became Sith without having a Sith master to train them.

Thanks for your time.

The current version of the question is very similar. Kylo Ren received an incidental mention in the question, but the question is about the Sith. The asker even specifically said that "who trained this Ren guy" is "not actually [his] question". Furthermore, as your own answer stated that Kylo Ren is not a Sith Lord, the Kylo Ren tag does not belong on the question anyway.1

I don't know if your Kylo Ren tag was deleted as a result of its removal from this question, but if so it should have been deleted at that time anyway since there were no questions that warranted the tag.

You mentioned that you attempted to create the tag on "at least three separate occasions". Since I only removed the tag on this one question, I cannot speak to why the tag was deleted on these other occasions.

1 There are multiple meta answers explaining why character tags should not be used on questions which give an incidental mention of the character. For example:

A tag could help pinpoint the questions that are specifically about the character, as opposed to mentioning it in passing; but this is rather marginal, especially as a title search should be able to serve the same purpose.


If the tag is used on every question that mentions the character, that defeats the purpose.

The latter is also quoted in the meta answer I linked to in our comment discussion. All of these answers are upvoted, indicating strong community consensus.

  • 2
    @DVK Whether a Kylo Ren tag is used by the community or not, it does not belong on the question I linked to. Kylo Ren received an incidental mention in the question, but the question is not about him. The question is about the Sith, and JMFB's own answer states that Kylo Ren is not a Sith. This is one of the big problems with character tags -- users have a tendency to add them to questions that mention the character but aren't actually about him/her. A Kylo Ren tag does not belong on that question -- not then, not now, not ever.
    – Null Mod
    Dec 29, 2015 at 14:41
  • 1
    @DVK Tone it down. If you can't be civil when discussing tags, then don't comment on tag discussions.
    – user1027
    Dec 29, 2015 at 16:05
  • 2
    @Keen - I admit I was less politic than possible in my wording, but in case you haven't noticed, Null's and your actions are running a user off the site, by his own admission (see the orignal question ending before edits). That is FAR MORE of a problem that needs to be addressed here, no? Dec 29, 2015 at 16:56
  • 1
    @DVK I'm not even sure if JMFB is talking about the discussion I posted, as it doesn't entirely match his description: I did not say anything "nasty" to him and I flagged it once (not multiple times). Even so, as I've already pointed out that question should not be tagged with Kylo Ren -- even if he's the most important character in all of Star Wars -- because the question isn't about Kylo Ren. I'm not trying to run him off the site, but we shouldn't create bad character tags just because one or two users want it.
    – Null Mod
    Dec 29, 2015 at 17:16
  • @DVK I've updated my answer to express my regret that JMFB will not receive the Taxonomist badge. Thank you for the suggestion.
    – Null Mod
    Jan 3, 2016 at 5:17
  • @Null - I updated my answer and as we discussed, offered OP to 3-way-mediate if he still feels if there's any unresolved issues as specifically regarding yourself. I see it as unfortunate confluence of events marred by mutual lack of information, with the worst thing that can be attributed to you is an incorrect judgement call (which, being a judgement call, you and I disagree with each other on merits, but regardless was defiinitely not intentionally malicious) Jan 3, 2016 at 6:05

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .