As per 
Zyn's instructions, I compiled an in-depth look at 
tuckerdkeith's draft activity.
I looked at a total of eight threads. This does not include the draft posted today. To help quantify what I was looking at, I assigned each thread a score of either -1, 0 or +1, based on the following:
- -1 for receiving even borderline-helpful feedback and not responding to the thread.
- 0 for no feedback from other users in the thread or a coherent response to feedback indicating that it was not taken seriously (I was feeling generous on one of them).
- +1 for a coherent response to feedback either taking it to heart or indicating that the feedback showed that the concept was flawed and should be shelved.
Thread: http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-1126563/i-need-some-critiques#post-2240050
Date: 25 Feb 2015
Result:
- Posted link to sandbox with no clue which draft (may have been the only one at the time) was referenced.
- Draft matching the description is no longer in his sandbox.
- Got a piece of feedback about "story" requirement of SCP articles, no response
- Got unhelpful feedback (countercrit was provided by
Decibelles and Zyn.
- Conclusion: Did not follow up, did not use feedback (-1)
Thread: http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-1466561/scp-xxxx-sea-blight#post-2417400
Date: 4 Dec 2015
Result:
- Full draft in forum, later posted sandbox link.
- Never reviewed (0)
Thread: http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-1467169/the-black-spot#post-2417785
Date: 4 Dec 2015
Result:
- Full draft in forum, later posted sandbox link. Draft is no longer in sandbox.
- Was called out as a rip-off of a Stephen King story, "The Raft"
- Apparently checked off other items on the Cliche list. I can't verify this due to draft being deleted.
- No follow up, deleted draft. (-1)
Thread: http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-1470145/the-liberators#post-2418957
Date: 7 Dec 2015
Result:
- Was line-by-lined by Aiden-Eldritch does not match any existing user name. Was called out as being too similar to SCP-993, reminded that SCPs are (my phrasing, not Aiden's) "constrained-format short stories".
- No response. Draft is no longer in sandbox. (-1)
Thread: http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-1471302/modern-gamer-syndrome#post-2419516
Date: 8 Dec 2015
Result:
- Reviewed by 5 users, including 2 members of Staff.
- Based on reviews and draft still in sandbox, no effort to improve was made. Marked as "Failed" in the sandbox.
- No replies to reviews (-1)
Thread: http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-1472575/dora-the-horrible#post-2420014
Date: 9 Dec 2015
Result:
- 1 review, said it made them laugh (-J attempt).
- No response. Marked as "Failed" in the sandbox. (-1)
Thread: http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-1474515/the-unreasonable-dr-bosch#post-2421485
Date: 11 Dec 2015
Result:
- Got a "This has been done better before" review from
Abettik. Replied with a "Thanks, guess it won't work, my friends and I were bored" post (implying this "user" is in fact a group effort?). (+1)
Thread: http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-1550232/cheeki-breeki#post-2438444
Date: 12 Jan 2016
Result:
- The sandbox draft is incoherent, inappropriate and disgusting (last two are my personal opinion).
- Zyn advised that they try something other than jokes. They responded with something that boils down to "gonna keep trying anyway", and that what was supposed to go there got eaten by troubled wifi. (0) (I was feeling generous. The response was more readable than the draft.)
Evaluation (5x-1, 2x0, 1x+1; net -4): This user appears to be flailing. They have only recently started responding to draft thread replies at all, and only once bothered to thank the reviewer. One point in their favor is that they are not coldposting, or posting after only one reply. That said, they're filling up the forums with the downside of Sturgeon's Law by shotgunning weak to mediocre ideas, which ties up reviewer time and energy. They are also failing to comprehend that a -J is harder than a normal SCP article due to the fact that it has to be both good and funny.
While aware that my vote doesn't count, I have to concur with Zyn on this user needing a revoke.
P.S.: Since I did the original evaluation, the user has posted another draft. Unlike earlier drafts, this one is coherent, with only a few SPaG issues. Idea-wise, it shows promise but needs expansion. They still need a wake-up call, but they may not be totally hopeless.
