# Love the "Anonymize User" feature - thanks!

**URL:** <https://meta.discourse.org/t/love-the-anonymize-user-feature-thanks/28608>\
**Category:** Praise\
**Created:** [May 11, 2015, 3:15am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/love-the-anonymize-user-feature-thanks/28608 "2015-05-11T03:15:32Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 20

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![elsantodel90](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/meta/user_avatar/meta.discourse.org/elsantodel90/32/119906_2.png) [@elsantodel90](https://meta.discourse.org/u/elsantodel90)\
**Post date:** [September 15, 2017, 5:09am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/love-the-anonymize-user-feature-thanks/28608/20 "2017-09-15T05:09:12Z")

</div>

Is this intentional?

As I understand, reverting “should be as easy” as changing the anon-username and anon-email to new values (of course, the original values are not stored anywhere, but we might know them by means external to discourse), and then sending a “generate password” message to that email. This seems like something that an **admin** should definitely be able to do.

Similarly, an admin could allow a new user to “take the role of” an old anonymized user, in exactly the same way. I see no reason to explicitly disallow an **admin** to do such thing (as far as I can see, this is now “explicitly and intentionally disallowed”, since if anonymizing were implemented as just a change of email, name and login-credentials, everything would be the same, but this “account restoring” would be possible by just changing these fields).

---

_[View the full topic](https://meta.discourse.org/t/love-the-anonymize-user-feature-thanks/28608)._