Following up on a discussion from the comments of , it seems that the option to hide communities in the site settings misses the mark.  As far as I get it, this option exists for users who do not want to expose their involvement in a certain community (in the discussion I linked to, the idea was to use Stack Overflow to make yourself more appealing for potential employers in the field of software engineering without disclosing your involvement in subjects that may seem controversial, such as politics). However, as C. Helling pointed out in that discussion - hiding a community may remove it from your profile in a site, but it would still be visible in your network profile.   Doesn't this miss the point? Should a hidden community be hidden from the network profile too?
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.
110399
Just ran across , which was bumped by  for having been unanswered. However, it was answered by Jeff (no upvotes), along with a  tag. I gave an upvote so that it wouldn't be bumped again. But, Community should ignore those posts, since they have an official answer.  Possible exceptions, as pointed out by random, are the statuses planned and deferred.  Statuses bydesign, completed and declined should be ignored by Community.
76343
From the     The spacing there between "Communities" and "This user doesn't participate in any other communities" looks a bit messed up... it's too small. Can we have that message shifted downwards a bit?  This alignment problem doesn't show up on profiles where there are other communities; on most profiles, even if the user isn't on any other sites, it'll list the present site anyways (i.e. for someone who's only on Meta SE, there'll be one entity, Meta, in that list, and everything looks fine).  This happens on all sites, and I've observed it on Vivaldi 2.0 and Chrome for Windows 10.
48197
Stack Exchange staff will actively remove links to a legal fund campaign from user profiles, posts, and comments, as well as community ads surrounding Monica's situation and reinstatement. Why?  [This post was originally posted by  but ownership was changed with a post-disassociation tool so that the accepted answer would be pinned to the top.]
48791
Since my profile will be deleted in a few hours, this doesn't concern me, but the remaining people may be interested.  We know the already famous post: . One may be surprised that it has too few comments, especially highly negative ones. It seems that the reason is simple: moderation. About 4 hours ago I've written the comment there, but it wasn't published. Since I don't see it "awaiting moderation" anymore and I see much later comments published, it seems to be removed. The comment was along these lines:     There were a lot of things I didn't like in SO: too positively-skewed   reputation changes, generally-accepted reputation farming via   answering duplicates which were asked 10 times, extremely low quality   threshold for questions, "accepted answer" feature implementation, etc. and etc. Looking at the recent changes,   things will become only worse. I'm deleting my profile.   Now, the question is: why was it removed? Is it unfriendly? Sure, but I don't see why it should be friendly: we express our opinions, and my opinion is negative. Is it non-constructive? Well, to some extent, but definitely more constructive than:     Nice! I’m (hopefully) looking forward to passing the 10k mark   If there are rules for commenting (like 2. You DO NOT TALK bad about SO), I think it makes sense to publish them (and give an easily-found link to them in the blog). It also would be interesting to know how comment moderation is organized.
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.
54738
My feed shows questions from all SE sites, most of which are irrelevant to me.  I'm interested in physics, math, and programming, topics I find served well by the SE model.  There are many SE communities I have no interest in and even get annoyed when I see the kinds of questions and answers posted (ie, opinion based answers that are passed off as truths).    It would be much better if I could manually add each site I'd like to see questions from.
24647
I was wondering how hard it would be to enable a 'hiding' option that let me hide certain questions that I don't want to see. That way if it was a very active question that I have no interest in, I could simply click hide and not see it anymore.  The only foreseeable reason why this couldn't be implemented completely with a Greasemonkey script is that it would be nice to get replacement posts. As of right now, even the hide tag feature simply hides the questions after they were loaded. If I hid a lot of tags, I would end up getting very few questions on the home page.  This is, of course, due to caching.
71500
I know this has probably been beaten to death, but there really needs to be a way to remove yourself from posted content. I understand deleting content has its issues, but certainly you should be able to transfer something you posted to an Anonymous account.   I'm really going to open myself up to trolls here, but not being able to delete things you posted is a major issue for the new careers feature. I'm not talking about stupid questions / answers I've posted so much as smart ass remarks / troll posts. You will probably say that one deserves to have their inflammatory comments stay attached to their name. I think that everyone has bad moments though, and there should be a way to publicly delete it. Not having delete forces people to create new accounts just to use the careers feature.  Edit: I just want to make it clear that I agree you shouldn't post anything you don't stand by. I'm saying though there should be some recourse for when you did.
119406
I was looking at the Community user's profile, and I noticed that there was about 15 sites missing in the "accounts" tab. There's a little over 120 sites on SE, and, there's about 15 sites missing from this count. Why is this happening?    Additionally, clicking on view more just shows one account, on Area51:
52225
My communities are visible to the Moderators and Stack Exchange employees, Its fine. But it says, "Other people may also be able to associate your presence on those communities with your public list in certain cases." If other people also can see my hiding communities then what is the uses of Hide communities here in Stack Exchange? Every general users are able to see my communities here.
1818
There's no need to  the  that have led to a lack of trust between  of  and . Suffice it to say that astoundingly they continue to assert that  and, instead of apologizing and reinstating Monica have demanded that she go through a process with no transparency, due process, or involvement from the community.   Has the time has come for Stack Exchange, Inc to spin off the community and all the data needed to keep the sites running to a separate non-profit, who would then in turn license the software from the company?  What's in it for the community?   The community can practice self determination for issues from as basic as the number of moderators they have to as fundamental as the policies they enforce. If the company development continues to be unresponsive to the community's needs, the community would be able to develop its own open source software that would meet its needs. They can find their own funding model instead of having ads imposed on them.   What's in it for the company?   Community actions will no longer reflect on the company. Interaction with the community as a customer may come more naturally to current leadership than the present paradigm. They don't have to worry about paying for the community's operating expenses. They can focus on doing one thing well.
61520
How I can remove myself from some Stack Exchange sites, but keep my profile? (For example, I subscribed to some sites just for curiosity; I just browsed without posting or replying.)  I found a delete option but I am afraid to click!   Would it be possible also to unsubscribe from sites where I have been active?
107954
Before joining a community you can easily see the community description. For example, for example before joining the Programming Puzzles &amp; Code Golf Stack Exchange you see the description:     Programming Puzzles &amp; Code Golf Stack Exchange is a question and   answer site for programming puzzle enthusiasts and code golfers.   However, after joining I can no longer see this description. I can go to the on-topic page and see a different description:     Programming Puzzles &amp; Code Golf is for programming contests and   challenges. We welcome questions from beginners and experts alike.   Yet, I cannot seem to find the original description anywhere. Is there a way to find the original description while being logged into a Stack Exchange site?  Based on Rene's answer, I can click the Tour link on each site, but StackOverflow (and maybe other sites) do not have a tour link. Instead, I'd have to go there by manually typing it in the address bar. Is there a reason that this has been removed from the Stack Overflow page?
101992
Actually we don't want to show some details to other profile user. I have researched solution for this problem but didn't find a answers for this question.
97779
I had a profile on a private beta site a while back that I listed under my Hidden Communities so it wouldn't show up on my profile on other sites. The private beta was closed, but my profile is still showing that I have 1 hidden community, both on :    ...and on :    But by going to /users/hidecommunities/[me] I can see that there isn't actually anything hidden anymore:     (By instinct I want to blame caching, but it's been several months.)
98395
Sometimes users accidentally post credentials or sensitive information in their posts. Although it's easy to edit those post then, the revision list will still show that information.   Deleting the post would be an option, but I assume it will also be somewhat annoying to users, even if it's for their own security. Plus, 10k+ users would still be able to see the post anyway. Our current approach is to ping a community manager who will then destroy the revision. Until that happens, the user's credentials are vulnerable to theft. Thus, to be able to better protect our users and react more quickly, moderators should be able to hide revisions. That would be like providing first aid until the doctor comes.  Possible implementations could be to have a link at each revision to hide the revision (maybe with possible undo). Or a link to flag them to Community managers, which would then hide the revisions until handled and also takes care of the pinging.   To go along with that, we could also introduce a separate flag reason for users that says "Contains credentials, private information or malware". These flags could then show up in the mod flag queue. Since we could filter for those then, we could give them priority handling instead of stumbling over them in "Other".  Note: there is a similar feature request in  already, but it asks for a user privilege, not a mod-tool. The Accepted Answer suggests to flag such posts. But like explained above, that doesn't help when moderators have to escalate this to a community manager as well.   Note: There is also . It addresses the same problem, but suggests a different implementation. Personally, I'd like hiding better than hard deletion by consensus. We cannot really hard delete anything so hiding would be in accordance with our other options. Also, when the aim is to protect a user quickly, we should be able to take action without having to wait for a consensus.