In the scheme I'm suggesting, one can't selfproclaim himself the voicer, of course.
For a group to publish something under these terms, the voicer (or lack there of) would need to be backed by all interested parties at publishing time, but once one is named it means that all members that are not the voicer accept to give up their right to ask for removal or to stand against it. Of course, all removal requests are to be submitted to RHDN staff to decide if it is applicable or not.
Rogue submissions of works that belong to more people than the person submitting it or don't belong to the submitter at all, and the original authors have not given explicit permission for it to be submitted, are a completelly different matter.
In these cases, where authorship rights have not been respected, a removal is due, undoubtedly, but the case presented above is different because it depicts what I would call "whimsical behavior" by the very authors of something they submitted themselves.
If you are, say, a painter and voluntarily donate a picture you painted yourself to a museum that takes care of all the work and costs of showing it to the public and even listens to your suggestions and demands about how it should be presented and many other details, it's quite egoistical and unfair to everyone involved to come later and say "no no, remove my pictures, I'm taking them to another museum" or "I don't want them on public display any longer, so take them out".
Then again, all that "voicer" stuff was just a suggestion of a way to mantain order while keeping a reasonable amount of respect to the authors' will. In the end, if you voluntarily publish something of your own in a community which you aren't responsible for and/or fully pay for it, you have no right to remove something just for the sake of it. It needs to be a real good reason.