(my words)>> It is partially a copyright issue if it is asserted that it must remain available because it was released under the GFDL. <<
From the way you wrote, I don't need to change your mind - we agree: it's forever GFDL; that's not a reason for the Wikipedia to keep distributing it if somene wants it removed and it makes sense for the Wikipedia to do so; people need to be aware of this, even if the Wikipedia is as helpful as it can be about removing personal information. Please let me know if any of this doesn't also reflect your views.
Addressing the publication issue, it's problematic if a publication wants to release something from the Wikipedia and can't or doesn't want to do it under the GFDL license. It would be a major challenge to contact the anonymous editors and obtain their permission. Given that difficulty, there seems little point in using this possibility as a reason to oppose logged in contributors having their personal information removed.
On the joke, yes, I know. Expanding on the theme of joking, there's a reason there are two sets of lawyers in cases that get to the Supreme Court and it isn't that the lawyers are agreeing or just want to increase their fees.:) Working out how close to the line to go without taking too much of a risk of being sued for doing something legal is harder than knowing what the law and precedents say.