Eschwartz  filed a deletion request for fontconfig-enhanced- defaults :
The package was originally submitted with the comment: "This a renamed version of fontconfig-good-defaults. A Trusted User removed it for a reason which is clearly invalid and will not respond to my emails. Next time a Trusted User thinks about deleting this, I challenge them to name one rule that it breaks and explicitly state how it breaks it. I also expect Trusted Users to hold all other packages in the Arch User Repository to the same standards."
It is presumably obvious why evading a package deletion by renaming is not okay, but for additional context, the original deletion happened in this PRQ: https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur- requests/2015-September/008546.html
Originally discovered because I was looking at the user's other package "update-pacman-mirrorlist". Is this kind of behavior a trend?