These are all fair points and certainly worth discussing. Before going too far I want to make a couple of things clear.
I really, really don’t like having to resort to a measure like this. In Troy’s case I think his contributions were extremely valuable and helpful on a topic that is extremely complex. Not having him here to help out is a loss. (Like @darix, if he’s amenable to toning down his interactions a little to hopefully not put off others, I’d still welcome his contributions and help).
This has to be weighed against his rather brusque manner of communicating, and the negative overall response to multiple entreaties to please be a little more considerate for the community. This was literally multiple times from various admins.
As this particular instance is a first occurrence like this we are doing our best to balance things.
CC licensing does require an attribution. In this case I would imagine a post where we can link/identify troys old account name to the anon account will fulfill the requirements for the license. I would imagine we could probably even add an attribution on the @anon11264400 user profile. I’m thinking this is the best way to preserve attribution requirements of content.
We don’t want to be in the business of unilaterally deciding anything, but we (the site) was granted a license to use the posted material. We are doing our best to accommodate things here, and trying to do what’s in the best interest of the community.
(edit) - I have attributed his old username to the anonymized account.