::::: I've never tried to remove the "Streisand effect" from See Also. My intervention there, as I recall, was to make it clear that two cases cited were US case law and to remove an irrelevant link to a Italian wiretapping case.  

 :::::I have no idea why a group of editors are obsessing about the Streisand effect. It seems to be entirely irrelevant to the case here. Of course Costeja understands that the effect of his suit is to bring him further into the public eye, but in general applying to Google for a take-down should not do so unless Google persists in notifying the original publishers the details of such take-down notices, and for that matter if Wikipedia editors continues to publish details of these take-downs as you for example appear intent. In regard of the first, the EU Commissioners have made it clear to Google that they frown upon their actions, while Mr. Wales himself has commented that he finds the second POINT-y and cruel. 

 ::::: Regarding Google's behavior I think it inevitable that they will face a legal process if they do not desist. It is after all, prima facie, the plainest possible contempt of court: Costeja is predicated on the right of citizens of the European Union (and associated territories) to a private life. Regarding attempts by Wikipedia editors to "name and shame", in the first place this depends on Google persisting in actions on the face of it illegal. I think inevitably naming and shaming in this manner will likewise eventually result in an intervention by the WMF. But I would say it's quite misconceived in any case because, in general, in the nature of the Costeja decision, which is about balancing private and public interests, successful applicants for take-down notices will be private individuals not in the public eys and therefore not notable, or at best merely on the single issue of being a successful applicant (and there are likely to be tens of thousand of successful applicants annually), and thus not usually eligible for inclusion in the encyclopaedia, any such inclusion plainly a violation of Wikipedia's BLP policy. 

 ::::: I hope you will agree I taken the trouble to explain the situation more fully to you. Something constructive you could perhaps do here would be to change the name of this article to its full form (including "Google Inc.") As mentioned above your original change of name is a disservice to readers. It is not just about Google Spain.