License requirements are generally not well understood at large, even among activists and other people involved with copyleft/free culture/etc. There's a plausible scenario where content author B takes content author A's work, creates something based on it, adds what looks like is the necessary (minimal) attribution that you're talking about here, and then content author A regards it as an attempt to diminish the credit that is due to them.

Content author B, being a thoughtful person and wanting to mitigate this response, but not wanting to allow B's own publication to hinge on establishing a dialogue with A beforehand, may look at this and opt to take a "safer" approach, which involves liberally giving credit so that attribution is well-known. (In other words, what the phrase "for good measure" means; no one can reasonably say that B was trying to diminish any credit due to A.)

Now, your comments here are indistinguishable from the ones someone would have posted after looking at the facts that we have and asking themselves, "what's the worst possible way to interpret this situation so that I can infer malice from this series of events?". I don't know if this is what you did, but the point is, your output here is indistinguishable from that of someone who had.

Here's where the strang-loopiness shows up and where the kicker lies: if you take exception with this line of argument, (so long as you're internally consistent) then you are necessarily compelled to be upset with your own earlier statements that you've made here.

It's a mandatory requirement of license to "give appropriate credit" - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed If author of the campaign wouldn't put David's name on the artwork, then that would be violation of license condition. Let me know if you can specify any other way to "give appropriate credit", without mentioning the name of original author. ^__^