I strongly oppose revocation at this point.
http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-1210255/scp-2128#post-2302698
Also, I see in the staff wiki that they're pretty set on revoking my account. If they gotta do it, I'll respect that, but does revocation mean my two existing articles ( The Lingering Lark of Leviathan Square and SCP-100000-J ) get removed permanently? I'm rather proud of those.
The user is fully aware of what's going on. They read O5, even if they don't fully understand it.
Revocation is to get people to sit up and take notice; people who haven't read guides, etc. It is not disciplinary action. It is not a punishment. In fact, for whatever reason, we have not actually taken any disciplinary action with regards to this user.
From the Site Rules:
Posting: Do not spam the site with shitty articles. If staff tell you to slow down or stop posting, listen to them.
We need to deliver an official warning. One should have already been delivered, but it is what it is.
That said, this particular coldpost is not immensely shitty. It's bad, but it's not appalling. Honestly, if it were that bad, I would be arguing for a 24 hour ban.
Relevantly, I should've caught this earlier, from Procyon's PM:
Should you continue to coldpost drafts without seeking critique, staff action may be taken, up to and including account revocation.
This is not acceptable; revocation shouldn't be used as a threat if it's not a punishment, and this circumvents the Site Rules by implying that we will not take the disciplinary action that the Rules ask us to take (but revoke instead at worst).
Not that I blame anyone for that. I didn't notice it myself! And Procyon was being actively helpful by taking this course of action — it's on the mods and admins that we didn't help or correct him (including me).
But we need to stop collectively ignoring the rules and trying to rely on revocations as a sort of lighter punishment, unless we're going to change the rules to establish that as procedure. And I don't at all oppose changing the rules, given sufficiently compelling arguments. But we do need to have that conversation — at least with admins.
Anyway, tl;dr unless the Disciplinary Team disagrees (or wishes to escalate further to a 24 hour ban), I recommend that we deliver this user an actual warning for violating the Site Rules and go from there.
As an aside, this is yet another user who desperately wants an author page and is willing to game the system to get one; they posted a typically low-quality author page immediately upon their third article reaching the positives. This is not against the rules, but it is irritating — the author page in question is currently no longer qualified, as the SCP in question is at a rating of zero, but they could literally re-qualify within moments.
I don't like that we're seeing this become a trend. Although this is, perhaps, merely a personal reaction, given that it's not causing any serious harm (besides to the author's reputation).
EDIT: As an aside, we have grounds for 24 hour banning due to repeatedly violating the quoted rule, regardless of how the warning was phrased.
But I think the user's redeemable, so I don't know that we need to bring the hammer down too quickly. So I'd say just go with a clearer warning and maybe have someone sit down and talk to them.