No, it's not for the quality of SCP-2203. It's for:
- Upvoting his own article at some point (and now having downvoted his own work for some reason)
- Not understanding how the process of sandboxing works (user's contribution history shows no sandbox activity whatsoever, same as with the article for which his membership was revoked)
- Not understanding that his article is going to be deleted (telling members in ALL CAPS that they should wait a week so he can edit his article while it's at -22.)
All of this demonstrates this user has absolutely no clue what they're doing and has no real intention of learning. This is exactly what revocation should be for: a simple 'go back and reread that stuff before you try again'.
Also, from the Site Charter:
Any member of Staff may make a suggestion regarding possible disciplinary actions in response to a user's behavior. Actions will typically move as follows: warning (in-thread or in PMs), revocation of membership, short tempban (24/48/72 hours)
Sounds to me like it is indeed the next logical step in escalation.
Edit: they also made an edit to SCP-727-J, adding the following text:
Requesting this SCP to be retired. It's the fucking sun, it lets us live.
Denied. SCP-727 is extremely dangerous, and untill it is neutralized, we can't retire it.
Dr. Schmidt was later terminated.
Edit comment was: Added a couple of notes to increase funnieness.[sic], I reverted.