Update #1: Someone in China has been creating numerous fake accounts with variants of my name other than the correct "johnascher" so please help me to find and suspend these imposters.

Update #2: Certain curators take umbrage at comments that are factual or neutral in tone if viewed objectively and charitably. It is not helpful to the site to flag or otherwise censor these based on unwarranted ascription of negative content and intent. For example, if an expert identifier asks, "Why ID to species?" maybe the identifier really wishes to know the rationale of the observer and the ID resources employed whether AI or a less than fully comprehensive field guide of iNat itself (due to uncorrected records appearing on the map). How is it appropriate or at all helpful for a curator (likely one who does not even work on the taxon in question, has not engaged with either the observer or identifier in question, and does not have any idea why such a query would or would not be warranted) to construe this as a hostile challenge or insult to the observer?

Assistant Professor at National University of Singapore and Research Associate at Lee Kong Chian Natural History Museum and the American Museum of Natural History.

My primary research focus is bees and related wasps. I contribute extensively to biodiversity portals such as Discover Life and Bugguide.

I review bees, apoid wasps globally to the extent possible and also some birds,non-apoid wasps, etc.

When you have additions and corrections regarding particular identifications please send an iNat message with links to the particular observation(s) in question. I cannot follow or respond to the myriad @ notifications I receive and some have evidently misinterpreted this as indifference. I really do want to receive feedback about identifications, especially wrong or questionable ones, but to get a good result please use an effective feedback method not the @ function (does not work for me at this time). Thanks.

I have a lot of questions and concerns about site tools and culture. It is not clear to me that expert input is optimally mobilized or respected. I also wonder whether automated tools are used efficiently? Why is AI attempting to ID species in difficult groups without crucial input about species ranges (i.e. without reference to a reliable distributional authority file) but evidently is not employed to do simpler but important things such as helping to flag and clean up the myriad exact duplicate image submissions?

Someone has been deleting common names for bees including those that have been credibly published in books and other reputable sources. I hope that the vandal(s) can be identified and safeguards put in place to protect content added by hard-working volunteer experts.