Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Removal/BarkingFish (reviewer)

BarkingFish
[ Express your view on this user ] (comments) Nominated on 

– I am applying to have my reviewers rights removed from en.wikinews effective immediately. I made a grave error in publishing a serious copyright violation, which resulted in the article requiring to be deleted and the revisions hidden. It should be noted in doing this, that this is the first error I have made on Wikinews in almost 2 years that has resulted in such a serious error. This request is made voluntarily, and I will continue to edit Wikinews after this unless further action is decided upon. BarkingFish (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

General comments
Requests for removal for this user: 
 * Links for BarkingFish:

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting. Unhelpful comments or votes may be removed at any time.''

Discussion

 * I am going to treat this as a resignation, and remove the rights unilaterally. I support what you're doing, but I'm also glad we won't be losing you altogether. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think this resignation is necessary. Everyone makes occasional mistakes (although this one was significant:P). Given that you understand the seriousness of the issue at hand I'd rather you just learnt from the mistake and moved on. Gopher65talk 22:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Anything less than resigning the bit might have left lingering doubts about xyr trustworthiness with the bit (a catch-22, that). Xe may also want some downtime from reviewing in which to find xyr balance again; I'd certainly feel shaken if something like this had happened to me.


 * It works for the project as a whole, too. By owning up to a lapse in judgment and taking real consequences from it, xe presents an examplar of personal responsibility &mdash; and taking review seriously &mdash; for future reviewers to try to live up to.  --Pi zero (talk) 05:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree wholeheartedly with Pi Zero's comment. This is a matter of honour for contributors, and the project. The action taken is honourable, and I support a speedy re-grant when time to reflect has been taken. (Random jab at US English: "I prefer the U in honour, something sadly lacking in the youth of today.") --Brian McNeil / talk 07:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Necessary, no, nor do I like this, but I agree with the point about honour and I think BarkingFish is doing the right thing.  — fetch · comms  00:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * He apologized, that is enough for me to give him the reviewer bit back. Everybody commits errors, and he was brave and responsible enough to come here and ask for his rights to be removed. That's awesome. Diego Grez return fire 03:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)