It seems that several people have looked at his demands and found them groundless. People who make irrational demands will never be influenced by rational responses.
Most legal threats are nothing more than crude attempts at intimidation. They can be considered a criminal act in some places. Nevertheless, it often works because so many people are absolutely paranoid about ending up in court. They put themselves at a disadvantage because they assume that they will be found guilty of something, even when in a civil case it has nothing to do with guilt or innocence.
If Mr. Wollmann thinks that he has a case let him go ahead with it, and show us that he means more than simply to intimidate. We can easily promise that when we receive the court documents in the case we will reconsider our position in the matter. This may or may not result in a removal of what he finds offensive from the site. Meanwhile it will have been very costly for him to mount his case with no prospects of recovering those costs.
Ec
Anthere wrote:
Just for the record, Mr Wollmann is still requesting removal of that information. I am not exactly sure what we should answer him now...
Ant
Bryan Derksen a écrit:
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Is it crucial to Wikipedia's integrity that we INCLUDE a mention of the fact that some anonymous troublemakers have branded a non-notable private citizen with a very annoying label?
It seems to me based on what I've seen over the past week or two of this debate that Wollman is both notable and public.
I think it is important ("crucial" may be overstating it) to Wikipedia's integrity that it doesn't remove notable, verifiable information about someone from articles solely based on the complaints and apparently groundless legal threats of that person.