# Disabling "enable names" makes admin act strange

**URL:** https://meta.discourse.org/t/disabling-enable-names-makes-admin-act-strange/291912
**Category:** Bug
**Created:** [January 17, 2024, 7:44am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/disabling-enable-names-makes-admin-act-strange/291912 "2024-01-17T07:44:29Z")
**Posts on this page:** 3
**Page:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![mdoggydog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/82dd89/32.png) [@mdoggydog](https://meta.discourse.org/u/mdoggydog)
#### Post date: [June 13, 2025, 8:23pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/disabling-enable-names-makes-admin-act-strange/291912/54 "2025-06-13T20:23:13Z")

</div>

> [@RGJ](#):
>
> Often the business owning the community has the legal right (and/or need) to know the names of their clients but privacy laws forbid them to publish those names to third parties.

Ok… but in this case, a non-admin user cannot even see their own name, and has no knowledge that full-names are even a thing on the site. I still cannot imagine a use for double-secret-probation treatment of full-names.

> [@RGJ](#):
>
> It’s #1. The description for the setting says:
> 
> _Show the user’s full name on their profile, user card, and emails. Disable to hide full name everywhere._

Yes, that is what the description _says_, but the description does not quite capture what the setting actually _does_.

> [@RGJ](#):
>
> > [@mdoggydog](#):
> >
> > - The sign-up dialog does not offer the full-name field
> 
> is weird.

…weird under Option #1. It makes perfect sense under Option #2.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![kris.kotlarek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/meta/user_avatar/meta.discourse.org/kris.kotlarek/32/176919_2.png) [@kris.kotlarek](https://meta.discourse.org/u/kris.kotlarek)
#### Post date: [June 16, 2025, 6:34am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/disabling-enable-names-makes-admin-act-strange/291912/57 "2025-06-16T06:34:34Z")

</div>

PR was merged, and the original bug reported in this topic is fixed.

We can open an additional #Contribute > Feature topic to discuss how the `enable_names` setting should behave.

* * *

> [@Heliosurge](#):
>
> Will this fix restore original function? Ie admin and the user can see their full name? Just seems this change initially has caused a lot of issues vs the original function. Even full moderator should have an option to see real name via a setting as some case uses this could be desired/needed.

This PR only fixed the original bug when the admin could not edit the full name. When `SiteSetting.enable_names` is disabled, neither moderators nor users will see names. Like you suggested, we might need additional settings for that.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![kris.kotlarek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/meta/user_avatar/meta.discourse.org/kris.kotlarek/32/176919_2.png) [@kris.kotlarek](https://meta.discourse.org/u/kris.kotlarek)
#### Post date: [June 20, 2025, 10:00pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/disabling-enable-names-makes-admin-act-strange/291912/58 "2025-06-20T22:00:16Z")

</div>

This topic was automatically closed after 4 days. New replies are no longer allowed.

[Previous page](https://meta.discourse.org/t/disabling-enable-names-makes-admin-act-strange/291912.md?page=2)
