Alright, it seems like was possible if you disable Javascript (which wouldn't happen, but we need to handle it anyway).

Now the worker's e-mail address will be shown in the list if the name is somehow blank. The first name will default to "Anonymous".

Verified fixed as of dev build 797.

As Jeff said, creating a worker with no name results in the first name of 'Anonymous', which will appear in the Worker list sidebar as 'Anonymous'. The no-name worker can be modified, deleted, or left as is and will function as expected (simply without a last name).

I'm going to leave this is a reminder/note in case it somehow comes up again with the tabbed interface. Keep in mind that this issue, as is, has been fixed.

This is in response to Jeff's comment about this only being possible if you disable Javascript -- referring to the validation checker that will lock the 'save changes' button if you choose not to enter a first name (red warning "Can't be empty!"). Ironically I don't turn off Javascript when I test so apparently I was getting the bug legitimately; meaning it can happen in regular practice.

When I was verifying the fix that went in, I found out that you can effectively "turn off" the checker as long as you don't "refresh" the Workers tab. If you simply click 'helpdesk setup' -> 'Workers' (tab) you will be presented with a ready-to-go "Add Worker" form. For some reason the validation checker will not be active and you can simply skip the first name (no warning will appear), add an e-mail address and save changes.

That is how I was getting the no-name to occur in the first place.

It's only if you "refresh" the Worker tab by clicking 'add new worker' where the validation checker seems to kick in and lock you from saving changes.

Like I said this has no impact on this issue. It's fixed even if you effectively do pass the validation checker and forget to add a first name, with the "Anonymous" worker. Nevertheless I assume it's possible to cause some other issues like saving mis-matched passwords, no password, etc if you attempt to bypass the validation checker. This would take some more testing on my part. But even if you did get past the system, it would be a minor inconvenience, as you could always login with a different worker and correct the mistake.

Anyway I just wanted this on the record and here seemed like the natural place.