Why is it considered "good faith" for someone to revoke what they know are correct identification?

General
1

Someone messaged me in November to tell me that they’d be deleting what they know were correct identifications on all of my observations, because they don’t like that I sometimes upload blurry photos from a car (such as groundsel tree, one of the only things flowering with white flowers in Georgia in fall) (Edit: This is an example of an observation I take from a car, not one of the observations with a revoked ID]) and easily recognizeable, and that I post illustrations and upvote the DQA on illustrations when I know the information is correct, to prevent sabatogue from people who think that illustrations should always be casual, no matter what.

So now a bunch of my older observations are no longer research grade, because this person is blatantly trying to bully me into taking down observations that they don’t like, even though these observations do not in any way violate the rules of the site.

Why is this considered acceptable behavior? You’d think bullying people into only uploading observations that one user approves of would be considered alarming behavior, but apparently it’s just fine and is totally in good faith?

How many other people have this person bullied into removing perfectly good observations and valuable research data? Why isn’t this a huge point of concern for everyone?

This behavior is very clearly malicious. There’s no way to pretend that removing what you know is a correct identification, to punish someone for posting other observations you don’t approve of, is in good faith. This is blatant bullying, and it is absurd that iNat staff seem to have no problem with it.

How much helpful data has been removed from iNaturalist because of this one bully? Why are they allowed to get away with it? Why is this behavior acceptable and how exactly is allowing this to happen supposed to encourage people to connect with nature?

How many people have been bullied off of this site entirely because of the actions of this bully and others, who seem to be allowed to get away with whatever abusive behavior they want as long as they make enough identifications, which they then revoke as a form of punishment??

Edit 2: To be clearer, this person has never added identifications to my photos taken from a car, I would have no problem with someone second-guessing their own identifications after learning more.

This person doesn’t like my observations of groundsel trees taken from the car, so to punish me for uploading these, they are revoking what they know are correct IDs from completely separate observations that have clear photos, taken at close range, with multiple diagnostic criteria and no other lookalikes.

This wouldn’t be a problem if this person has simply quietly removed their IDs and/or blocked me.

The problem is that they are trying to pressure me into only uploading the kinds of observations that they personally approve of and punishing me for not complying by removing IDs that they know are correct, from completely separate observations, and telling me they’re doing this because I won’t comply with their demands to only observe things in a way they approve of.

This person would not be removing what they know are correct IDs if I’d removed all of my “offending” observations. They would not have told me they’re revoking correct IDs if I’d given in and removed my observations they don’t approve of.

This isn’t someone who’s learned more identification skills and is second-guessing earlier observations, they’re purposefully trying to pressure me into removing observations they don’t approve of, by revoking what they know are correct IDs as punishment for not complying.

The problem is that this person is using bullying tactics to pressure people into deleting observations that they’ve decided don’t belong on the site. There is no telling how many more people they’ve done this to and succeeded in bullying into deleting valuable data, or into leaving the site entirely, and the staff of this site should take things like this more seriously.

Bullying is not okay, and this kind of behavior should be taken seriously.

5 Likes
2

I don’t see a revoked id there.

3

That’s not a specific example of a revoked ID, just an example of some of the photos I take from cars. We’re not supposed to single out the person doing this in the forums, which is why I didn’t link to one of the affected observations.

3 Likes
4

OK, understood.

1 Like
5

My understanding is that anyone can delete their own IDs at any time for any reason, and that good faith is irrelevant.

15 Likes
6

Trying to police other people’s observations (via the private message you got) is not good, and you should flag the message or email help about it.

However, IDs are the property of the identifier, and anyone is free to give and revoke them for whatever reason they want, or for no reason at all. Someone else will come along and add their own before long, and the issue will correct itself.

20 Likes
7

I did flag it and ask for help when I got the message, but it was considered perfectly fine, which is why I’m making this thread now.

It’d be one thing to just quietly remove the IDs, and I wouldn’t have a problem with that. I’d be confused, but it’d be fine.

But going about it this way, by purposefully telling me it’s to punish me, is clearly bullying, and I think more people need to be aware of it, especially if anyone else has had to deal with this.

6 Likes
8

This is an example of personal boundaries.

This person is doing exactly what one ought to do, controlling one’s own behavior only.

In this instance, this person is choosing to delete:

and conceivably refrain from engaging further on your Observations. That they chose to explain their reasoning provides you notification that your Observations are being returned to Needs ID and also that they do not wish to engage further.

That is their right, and it sounds like Staff determined it does not violate iNat’s rules, correct?

Nobody here is obligated to identify for anyone else, nor is anyone required to leave their identifications somewhere. Furthermore we are told to politely ask people not to engage with us rather than using blocking, etc.

They are doing this because:

That is your right. You do not have to cease, because as you note,

Both behaviors are within the rules of iNaturalist.

But just as they are only making decisions regarding their own behavior, you can also only make decisions regarding your own behavior.

It is frustrating, I know. As Jason astutely and succinctly noted,

but ultimately we each can only control ourselves, within the iNaturalist rules. Boundaries are personal. The boundaries someone chooses might not be the ones I would choose or you would choose, but they are allowed to choose them.

Hopefully people here can go attend to your “Needs ID” Observations and you can dismiss any more thought about this particular Identifier.

21 Likes
9

I agree with most of this post except for the statement: “controlling one’s own behavior only.”

The claim is that the identifier is trying to control the observer’s behavior. Granted, we did not see the message so we cannot make a judgement if the identifier is actually trying to control the observer or not.

If the identifier merely withdrew their id’s with no message to the observer I guess this would have been fine.

4 Likes
10

As you note we did not see the message, and we are told to ask people politely not to engage further with us. Furthermore, discussions here on the Forum indicate people wish they would be notified if Identifications were removed so they could attend to them.

Let us assume good intent or if not that at least neutral intent.

2 Likes
11

You can’t take things like this personally. You’re not breaking any rules, but (assuming they haven’t made any nasty threats other than saying they will remove their IDs) then I am afraid they are not breaking any rules either. There are some weirdos out there, on iNat just as everywhere else in the world, and the best thing to do is just ignore them. Anyone is free to add or remove observations and IDs freely, and that’s as it should be. Them removing IDs is not really ‘punishing’ you, as somebody else will add an ID to make it research grade again soon enough. If you are finding their behaviour to be harassing and stressful, iNat provides you the ability to block them. I suggest you do that so that you can continue to use the platform in peace.

11 Likes
12

I don’t see how the identifier can control the observer’s behavior by removing IDs. Maybe the identifier wants to do that, but all the identifier can actually do is control the identifier’s identification.

2 Likes
13

I think this identifier’s behavior is wrong. He shouldn’t be removing ID’s in an effort to pressure others to post photos he doesn’t approve of. However, it’s his right to remove ID’s. Best for you to just move past this. Keep posting the photos you want to post (assuming there is hope that they are identifiable, as seems to be the case here.)

12 Likes
14

The problem is it’s probably not just me this person’s done this to, which is why I made the thread.

I’d have no problem if they were just removing the IDs, but the fact that they’ve done this to me begs the question of how many other people they’ve been bullying like this, and how long it’s been going on.

1 Like
15

See, this is not OK.

You’re effectively attempting to launch a Courtroom of Public Opinion, Charge: Bullying! Counts: TBD! Documents: Secret.

Staff is aware of your message. They have said it did not violate iNaturalist rules.

We need to defer to them to handle this seemingly isolated incident, not try to agitate a mob to go hunting for Defendant: PM Me And I Will Tell You Who!

8 Likes
16

"We need to defer to them to handle this seemingly isolated incident, not try to agitate a mob to go hunting for Defendant: PM Me And I Will Tell You Who!

I’ve literally not told anyone who this was, so I don’t know why you’re accusing me of that.

iNaturalist staff are not gods, they’re wrong sometimes. Bullying is not okay. Pressuring people into removing observations because they don’t meet your specific approval is bullying.

4 Likes
17

Some people are just busybodies who think they have to police what others are doing. In real life, you can generally avoid them. You can’t do much about them on iNat other than ignore or block them, as long as they aren’t violating any rule.

7 Likes
18

Of course the Staff are not gods. They are, however, the final say at iNaturalist.

Bullying is not OK, however maintaining personal boundaries, within the rules of iNat, is not bullying.

Someone telling you they are removing their identifications could be

  1. attempting to pressure you (and they would put their IDs back?)

OR

  1. just informing you of their decision, already made, so you can attend to your Observations.

I prefer to assume good, or even neutral, intent, having realized that the vast majority of people here are, well, good.

This is unnecessary, as conceivably Staff would have heard about it. We do not need an "up-in-arms"ing over … this.

I wish you well and hope your Observations are identified again quickly.

10 Likes
19

An observation should have a time and place. Is this true of the illustrations? If so, do you make it clear in the observation notes? What would you consider “sabotage” in the context of an illustration?

Personally, I think “Artist’s Impression of a Zebra Finch” is unlikely to add value. It is common for people to miss important details even in their own photos.

2 Likes
20

Sarcasm: So, it’s “always assume good intentions” right up until someone brings up bullying behavior? Then it’s a witch hunt. Gotcha. :+1: