User talk:Chelsea Mbakop

This user is a student editor in University_of_Pennsylvania/Medical_missionaries_to_Community_Partners_(Fall_2022) .

Welcome

Hello, Chelsea Mbakop and welcome to Wikipedia! It appears you are participating in a class project. If you haven't done so already, we encourage you to go through our training for students. Go through our online training for students

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Please also read this helpful advice for students.

Before you create an article, make sure you understand what kind of articles are accepted here. Remember: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and while many topics are encyclopedic, some things are not.

Your instructor or professor may wish to set up a course page, and if your class doesn't already have one please tell your instructor about that. It is highly recommended that you place this text: {{Educational assignment}} on the talk page of any articles you are working on as part of your Wikipedia-related course assignment. This will let other editors know this article is a subject of an educational assignment and aid your communication with them.

We hope you like it here and encourage you to stay even after your assignment is finished! ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Chelsea Mbakop, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with Wiki Education; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.

Handouts
Editing Wikipedia, a guide for student editors Choosing an article to edit Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions in our FAQ.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:06, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with upload of File:Drbronnum1.png

Thanks for uploading File:Drbronnum1.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Dr. Niels Hoegh Bronnum.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Dr. Niels Hoegh Bronnum.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:06, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating the non-free content policy, as you did at User:Chelsea Mbakop/Niels Hoegh Bronnum.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Chelsea Mbakop (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not purposely trying to commit copyright infringement. The photos I am using are of deceased people and they are necessary in order for me to prove the existence of the person I am writing on. I was in the process of trying to procure more proof on why the images are acceptable for us, and I had the images still up because I felt like the reasons were warranted. I am requesting a second chance. If the case is that I really cannot use those images, then I will not use those images anymore. However, there is a lot of good information on the article and a lot of research went into creating it. I have also yet to finish adding all of the sources. So, please, please, allow my page to be unblocked.

Decline reason:

In order to lift the block, we need to be certain that you understand how copyright works on Wikipedia. To allow the reviewing administrator to assess your understanding, please respond to the following questions in your next unblock appeal, explaining in your own words:

What is copyright?
How is Wikipedia licenced?
Why is copyrighted content not allowed on Wikipedia?
Under what circumstances can we use copyrighted content?
How do you intend to avoid violating the copyright policy in the future?

Your answers will enable us to establish whether or not you should be unblocked. Yamla (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Chelsea Mbakop (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked because I violated the non-free content policy of wikipedia. I was warned of my violations several times, but I did not take it seriously. After educating myself, I feel I have a much better sense of copyright, which can be defined as the ownership of one's intellectual, creative, and academic property. Violating copyright policies is a lot like committing plagiarism. For that same reason, copyright content is not allowed on wikipedia. All of wikipedia's work is licensed to the public, so it is my job as an editor to ensure that I am sharing work I do not have permission to share, as that can cause various legal issues. Wikipedia wants to perpetuate the use of free content, content that is open for all the public to indulge in and share for the purpose of further all sorts of knowledge. I violated the non-free content policy, meaning my image did not match any of the criteria: No free equivalent, respect for commercial opportunities, minimal usage, previous publication, content, media-specific policy, one-article minimum, contextual significance, restrictions on location, and image description page. A way to avoid violating this policy would be to include as much information on the source as I can as possible and ensuring that it meets all of the copyright standards listed on wikipedia's various help pages. Having my page blocked was a wake up call, and I will ensure that I do not commit the same error again. Chelsea Mbakop (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Per Chelsea's explanation that they now understand the non-free content policy and won't repeat the error again — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:27, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that what I did was wrong and in the future I will have a professional look over my photos before I add them. I will not make the same mistake again because this article is very important to me. Chelsea Mbakop (talk) 19:21, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A professional will not necessarily be of any help. What is needed is an understanding of WP:NONFREE which you can gain while you are blocked. PhilKnight (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey User:Yamla and User:PhilKnight,

Chelsea Mbakop is a student in a course who is learning. Please see her user page Do you think your communication could take an educational posture rather than a police/enforcement tone?

Please recall that there is an assumption of good faith on wikipedia. Asking her to write a treatise on copyright, wikipedia licensing, rules of copyright and wikipedia licensing, circumstances of using copyrighted material, and steps to avoid "violating" copyright policy in the future is not demonstrating any assumption of good faith.

Chelsea was building a new page in her sandbox and learning how to upload media. Instead of just blocking her as a user, while the page is still in her sandbox, maybe one could type on the talk page, "Hey Chelsea, your image violates the Wikipedia policy, the draft article looks like you did a lot of great work. Try developing the article without a picture." Or even, take a traditional tone like "Chelsea, before you upload the image, please check the copyright rules and standards." There is no reason to 'execute' the user with an indefinite block while she is building an article in her sandbox.

Her user page says she is a student, she acknowledges the need to improve her work, she says she is seeking help learning, she is working in a draft space. It neither promotes learning nor supports inclusivity in wikipedia editors to drastically punish her while she is learning.

Is this really what wikipedia has come to? It is difficult to see your messages and decisions as good faith and they come across as bullying. It is demoralizing and makes me lose faith in Wikipedia as an open and inclusive space. I am asking that User:Yamla and User:PhilKnight assume good faith, respect Chelsea's learning, and let her begin her work on her article again.

Breamk (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Breamk I'm assuming you are this person's instructor. Note that copyright must be taken seriously here, as copyright issues potentially put Wikipedia in legal jeopardy. We must be certain that the issues involved are understood. Blocks are not a punishment, but a means to prevent disruption to Wikipedia, such as that caused by non-free content that is improperly used. I'm sorry that this may come off as mean, but we cannot put the project in jeopardy. Perhaps it would help in the future to instruct students to not use images, at least right away(images are not germaine to the draft approval process). 331dot (talk) 09:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response User:331dot. I, for one, appreciate your volunteering time to address this issue. I am concerned that the response is more invested in perpetuating the two previous administrators decisions and I find it difficult to see how this perpetuation supports positively improving wikipedia. There is an opportunity for an administrator to de-escalate the situation and remove the block.

You mention that "copyright must be taken seriously". That communicates an assumption that Chelsea Mbakop did not take copyright seriously. That would not represent an assumption of good faith. I hope all administrators could lead by example in this basic function of assuming good faith. If you are unsure if something was done in good faith, please ask rather than assuming the worst. Chelsea Mbakop has in fact stated above that she does take copyright seriously in her request for unblocking. The administrative response, rather than recognizing her learning, escalates and asks for more punishment.

In addition, you express a concern of legal jeopardy for wikipedia. The work in question was put into a sandbox (as described above) and not in the mainspace. I have checked with legal scholars at a leading law school on copyright and they see no legal risk for the wikipedia project for a student as part of a classroom assignment to put a picture with a copyright in a draft space that is then removed before putting it in the mainspace. There is no need to be dramatic about jeopardizing the entire Wikipedia project.

I understand you are suggesting that I instruct learners to not put images in their work. This suggestion is in contradiction to the Wikipedia associated WikiEdu project suggestions to include images. Perhaps one of the responsibilities of admins could be serving an instructional capacity in the WikiEdu project. It may help to strength both projects, increase the pool of talented editors, and develop the professionalism of the entire Wikipedia project. Improving wikipedia more than policing wikipedia should could be a shared goal. I hope all admins will join the WikiEdu project and positively contribute to the improvement of Wikipedia.

Finally, I understand you do not perceive a block as punishment. That is a privileged view that not everyone has access to. A block is the equivalent of a wikipedia incarceration, at a minimum it is a grounding. Chelsea Mbakop is unable to work on her page now because of this detention. It creates significant distress. To be clear restricted activity, even a grounding, and causing distress is a punishment. Stating that a block is not punishment does not make it so; the lived experience of a new editor is quite the opposite of your position of it not being a punishment. It has been quite punishing.

It is not clear why three administrators have decided to make this event non-instrucitonal, create negative perceptions towards wikipedia, and have given the appearance of digging their heals in after the User in question clearly demonstrates that they got the message. I will repeat, this perpetuation escalation of the negative consequences of the error in her sandbox gives the appearance of bullying. I hope the next editor that responds can find a way towards de-escalation and removes the block. Breamk (talk) 14:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Breamk I think you are reading more into my comments that I intended, but that's on me. I haven't evaluated this student's reply yet(and it may be a bit before I can, hopefully someone beats me to it)

If you have lawyers that say copyright violations in draft space are not a legal problem, you may want to have them communicate that to the Wikimedia Foundation's lawyers(link) since we state at WP:NONFREE that "Never use materials that infringe the copyrights of others. This could create legal liabilities and seriously hurt the project". I don't think I was exaggerating with my comments. I do wish you the best. 331dot (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot looks like we what the same reaction to this at pretty much the same time! But thanks for doing the work of providing an actual link to WMF. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Breamk For what it's worth, this isn't entirely accurate

The work in question was put into a sandbox (as described above) and not in the mainspace.

The files are in Wikipedia's "File:" namespace, and they're accessible to anyone. The issue of including them in the sandbox is the smaller problem - the larger one is uploading them to the server. Without proper documentation it also poses a risk to re-users of Wikipedia's content (which is an important facet of the whole project).

I have checked with legal scholars at a leading law school on copyright and they see no legal risk for the wikipedia project for a student as part of a classroom assignment to put a picture with a copyright in a draft space that is then removed before putting it in the mainspace.

Can you get them to share this opinion with the Wikimedia Foundation's legal team? This runs contrary to the understanding the community has worked under, and, I believe, the position of the Foundation's legal team. Given the implications for the project, it would be very helpful if this opinion could be communicated publicly with the team. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia community's rules about non-free content are deliberately significantly stricter than legally required. What your lawyers say won't change the community's position. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. How long will it take for my page to be unblocked? I have had sufficient time to think through the copyright process and no longer see the necessity of a continual block. Chelsea Mbakop (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JJMC89 I think the request is sufficient, but I'd like to hear any comments you have. 331dot (talk) 21:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments that I have or 331dot? Chelsea Mbakop (talk) 01:33, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was addressing JJMC89(the blocking admin). 331dot (talk) 07:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking momentarily — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:27, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]