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<sup>\[3\]</sup>, 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 (<sub>as per above, I greatly disagree with him on merits of that judgement call, but it's his right to make that judgement call</sub>); and (#2) considered it inapplicable to THAT specific question (<sub>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</sub>).

   - 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. (<sub>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.</sub>)

- 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<sup>\[1\]</sup>**

- 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<sup>\[2\]</sup> 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.

-----

<sub>\[1\] - 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</sub>

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

<sub>\[3\] - 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</sub>