Jimmy: perhaps "successfully pressured" was a poor choice of words. I was attempting to paraphrase this part of Richard Perez-Pena's article:
"Around that time, Catherine J. Mathis, the chief spokeswoman for the New York Times Company, called Mr. Wales and asked for his help. Knowing that his own actions on Wikipedia draw attention, Mr. Wales turned to an administrator, one of several who would eventually become involved in monitoring and controlling the page.
"On Nov. 13, news of the kidnapping was posted and deleted four times within four hours, before an administrator blocked any more changes for three days. On Nov. 16, it was blocked again, for two weeks."
So--would you be amenable to "sought and received Wikipedia's cooperation"? I'll make the change above, and reference both the original wording and your objection.
Also, I didn't say that Wikipedia broke any of its rules, as you suggest in your comment. I said Wikipedia constrained the freedom of some of its users. That seems accurate to me, since you (i.e., Wikipedia) seem to have made a concerted effort to delete information you knew to be true. (Presumably Mathis's phone call established that Rohde had, in fact, been kidnapped.) If I'm wrong, feel free to explain why. And thanks for weighing in.