An anon user (which I assume stands for "anonymous")    doesn't seem to be very anonymous. This particular screen shot was taken from a  which I found by following a link on a (very non-anonymous) StackOverflow profile:    Ironically it's on security.SE regarding privacy.  If it's really intended behavior that the post should be listed among the users Top Network Posts, I think it should somehow be clarified that the user is not in fact anonymous.
121449
A while back I asked to have a question disassociated from my account (). It was, but today I noticed that it still appears on  under "Top Network Posts".
50001
It has been my understanding that accounts are suppose to be for a specific user. This user, , is a company: . No doubt, this account has provided some quality answers. However, if a specific user cannot be identified, I don't think that the rep gain, rewards, or badges should be given. This should somehow be tagged as a 'Corporate User'. The rep has no real value when you can't be somewhat sure that the same person is giving the answers all the time.  This is where I found an answer by Devart: , peddling a product.    Edit 2 Good points have been brought up and most I can agree with. But we are setting a precedent. Meta Fudgey brought up a good point about the account's ability to use mod tools responsibly and consistently. Maybe this feature is not available to an account that appears to be an umbrella account unless a single user is identified. I think it is important to consider this aspect.    Let me re-iterate: the user(s) has provided excellent content and I would want that to continue. However, there is more at stake here than meaningful content and helpful resources.      Edit The view on 'shared' accounts wasn't so bright a year ago. For most of us, we have information in our profiles that identifies us as individuals. No, I don't have absolute knowledge of the activities on this account and how many people might use it. Meh, for all we know it could be a knowledgeable programmer with some good PR sense. On the other hand, it could be a PR person with no programming knowledge getting the answers from an employee. Who knows...
42614
I hid a couple of Stack Exchange networks from my network profile, yet the activities I have done in those hidden networks (answering questions, gaining badges, meta) are still showing up. I would like to hide activities from networks I have hidden, please.  Or if it was a feature, is there a reason why it was suspended/removed?
38238
Sometimes when reading through user comments on a particular answer, some usernames that appear like user[digit] e.g user12345 are not links. Is this a known behaviour or any other thing I am not aware of?
120679
We know that if a community is hidden, one can not see the "Network Profile" link except moderators. But I've found that one can still find "Network Profile" link from accounts link on activity tab.  For example, (Though I don't like hiding communities)  I've just hidden a community - Information Security. Now if you go through  on Internet Security, you won't be able to see the "Network Profile" link:        But the "Accounts" link from the  tab will give you my network profile link!    So, in such cases, not showing the "Network Profile" link to normal users is pointless given that the accounts tab contains a link to the Network Profile.  Hence, I suggest removing the network profile link from "Accounts" on the "Activity" tab as it is already available for the profile owner through the "view more" option underneath Accounts.
121558
I noticed , with a network-wide suspension. They've filled their profile clear full of spam links, and the thing that delinks links in suspended profiles is working on per-site profiles. But on his , the links are still links. They're nofollowed, but users can still (accidentally?) click them. Can we unlink them on the network profile too? If they deserved a network suspension, they likely can't be trusted with clickable links either.
83583
This is related to .  Bill the Lizard informed us that mods know who flagged a post, but does this include them?  If a mod gets flagged, do they get to see who flagged them?  Not that any of these wonderful mods would ever think of doing anything untoward, but you never know.  Bill might suddenly lose his mind one day and, if I have to flag him, madness plus "modness" could equal mayhem.
10462
I recently noticed a new feature, the network profile link, just under the flag weight in my user profile page. It probably seemed like a good idea but I really don't like it. Here's why:  I am very committed to StackOverflow, use my real name for the account, take a professional approach to it and hope to use it as something of a portfolio-light at some point in the future.   Every now and then I venture onto other Stack Exchange sites but I do so with mostly different names for different SE sites. I have posted some questions and answers that I would rather not have connected back to my Stack Overflow account. They've been silly or controversial and have nothing to do with software engineering. I would rather a potential employer not see these posts or even see links to other sites I may be a member of. There are sites where mere membership can be offensive to people. For example: Atheism, Christianity, Skepticism, etc. I really do not want these sites and accounts to be linked back to something that I do take seriously such as SO.   It is also a matter of privacy. I see the network profile and accounts links as something akin to using a particular browser and finding out that the browser is publishing your history for all the world to see. Some might be OK with that but not me. There are SE sites I find interesting and want to participate in from time to time but only anonymously. Had I known that all of my SE accounts would at some point be tied and published together I would have never signed up for many of them.  I would very much like to see a check box when editing my profiles that specifies whether or not my SE accounts should be displayed.  Thank you for your consideration.
46902
After finding , I thought about inspecting Community's ♦ profiles. What did I notice? Community ♦ have more than 1 rep on some meta sites.    - 5 rep  - 3 rep  - 3 rep  - 3 rep   Why is it?
55491
It's been more than a month since I have started using . It has these users with user names in the format of "user-random number". I have observed them in some of the stack activities, most of the time asking questions.   Does the moderators create them for their own purpose. If yes what purpose do they serve?   I mean a user is free to have any user name. But it's just a hunch that such users are actually moderators. I may be wrong; just need some clarification.
69449
IANAL et al. is usually the start of answers to [legal] questions on any SE site (e.g. ). You usually end up with personal opinions which sound sensible and the accepted answer is often the one closest to the OP's hopes. But it's probably often not correct. I know the situation can be rather complicated and even differ by location, but it would be really helpful if the SE team were providing official lawyers (indicated maybe by using a § in the username, forbidden for everyone else, just like the mod ♦) to provide some orientation that one could actually rely on beyond much doubt...
48622
How was an anonymous user able to suggest ? (Warning: it has an offensive edit summary, which has been edited out in the screenshot below.) It doesn't seem to change anything, not even when viewing the Markdown source:    IIRC, if you suggest an edit and then immediately edit it again, but if the new edit doesn't meet the 6 character minimum it won't be accepted by the system. I just tried (while logged out) to retag this question and undo that in the grace period, but I get a message , as it should.
14705
I've never seen this before. Our global and site level settings are 'don't allow sharing outside your organization' but today I noticed in the Site Permissions page an entry for Anonymous Users. It is not clickable and each time I check the box, it checks all other boxes. Does it impact our global settings? Or, how do I remove this permission?
100844
on Ask Different appears to have no name due to invisible Unicode characters:    he's the #2 user on the site:    Why is that allowed? I think it is confusing for users, e.g. when they will see at the bottom of an answer:    It's not clear who answered, not clear what the rep numbers and badges are related to, and not clear how you can @reply to that user in the comments!
99515
Here we see Community's list of accounts. She has 106 communities (does that exclude beta sites?) and has 1 rep on all of them.  But over at her , she only has one account, on Area 51:  I guess it is showing Area 51 because of the strange old code that Area 51 uses, but is is odd that she shows 106 accounts (when there are 138 sites officially) and that she only shows one on the Accounts tab... Why is this, and should it be changed? Is it to do with the new user profile? Update: It's not because of the new profile, this is the image on Stack Overflow. Clicking view more ironically shows less.
119228
I spent some time trying to help the OP on  this morning.  He evidently didn't like my answer,  and gave me a downvote.  How do I know?  Well, when I deleted my answer, his rep immediately went back up by 1.    Now, I don't much care about the particulars of this question/answer (or my rep), but it seems to me that this is a potentially significant hole in maintaining the anonymity of voting.  Obviously, this hole has only been possible recently -- ever since rep changes have become reflected instantly.  Also,  is very similar, but doesn't take into account the ramifications of the insta-changes to rep that led to this scenario.  Should this be considered a bug?
54948
I often see users who appear as user12345 or something similar. I personally dislike this for a few reasons:    I'd prefer to know who I'm dealing with I think the quality of questioning is generally better from users who have an identity Somehow it seems like cheating... disrespectful in some intangible way.. here we all are helping each other for free, and what? You can't even be bothered to show your face?   I've read the question   and there the conclusion seems to be that we don't mind whether the identity is real or adopted.   Fair enough. My problem is with people who can't even be bothered to have an identity at all. (I understand that in some cultures, it might be seen as problematic to make community contributions on your boss's time, even if there's a net gain. Lots of the user12345 folks seem to be asking for work-related answers: even full-blown solutions.)  Coming back to my first point about wanting to know who I'm dealing with; I actually can't tell the numbered users apart. Those numbers just don't stick in the brain, so it becomes like trying to interact with the Borg. Even if people have reasons to conceal their 'passport' identity, why can't they at least be encouraged to put some minimal imagination into making up a fake?   Stack overflow has successfully gamified all sorts of things, so isn't there a way to lean on people (ever so gently) to put a little bit of effort into dumping the auto-generated name. Nag them every 5 logins? Whatever.