User:Beeblebrox/rough guide to username blocks

I've been reviewing reports at WP:UAA for quite some time and have over that time evolved a simple set of rules I apply when determining when to block and what settings to use when doing so. Sometimes this seems a little vague or weird to some people so I thought I'd write out my unwritten rules. As these are completely my own rules they are not binding on anyone including myself, they are just a rough guide to the thought process.

A note on terminology: a "hard" block is a block with autoblock enabled, where the user is instructed that they must appeal the block if they wish to continue editing, whereas a soft block does not have autoblocking enabled and the user has the option to just create a new account and try again while still letting them know that if they are just spamming they will be blocked again regardless of their name.

situation	block?	settings	rationale
trolling username/vandal edits	yes	hard block	Clearly here in bad faith
WP:ORGNAME, spamming for said organization in article space	yes	hard block	Clearly a spammer
Trollish username, but edits are fine	no	n/a	This is a situation where discussing the matter with the user is the best course of action, if that fails to resolve it WP:RFC/N is the next step. Many people simply don't realize that Wikipedia has stricter standards than many websites regarding user names.
ORGNAME, no edits	no	n/a	If they haven't made an edit there's no problem to solve yet
ORGNAME, edits to user/draft/sandbox about said organization	yes	soft block	They are at least kind of trying to work inside the rules, probably unaware of how seriously spamming is taken here, this gives them a chance to try again
Spammy edits, username is clearly that of a public relations or marketing firm	yes	hard block	I feel that professional PR people who somehow still don't know that their craft is not welcome here need to get a clear message that what they do is not compatible with an encyclopedia. See also: WP:BYENOW.
hate speech/attack username, regardless of number of edits	yes	hard, talk page revoked, no notice	Clearly here in bad faith, creating a talk page just gives their name more profile, I will even delete already created user and talk pages, they can see the logged reason they are blocked if they try to edit.
Possible ORGNAME, but no spammy edits	no	N/A	If you can't say in good faith that the name is clear violation, there is no cause to block. Encourage reporting user to discuss it with the user if they feel the need.
Username not a blatant violation, vandal edits	maybe	hard block if applicable	UAA is not a substitute or proxy for WP:AIV. If the vandalism is bad enough it is acceptable to block based solely on that, but making bad edits does not create a retroactive username violation
Username matches that of a famous person, has edited content related to that person	yes	soft block	Noting here that this is the one exemption to the idea that we don't block accounts that haven't edited recently. In this case, the appearance that someone is editing their own article can cause real damage to their reputation, so it's important to block these accounts regardless of the age of the edits
Bot username, edits are fine	no	N/A	This particular provision of our username policy is not at all obvious to new users and usually not an indication of acting in bad faith. Informing the user of the policy and asking them to change it is therefore a more appropriate response.
Username makes blatant scatalogical or genitalia references, no edits	yes	hard block, no talk page notice	I'm talking really blatant, like "User:poopdick69" (which it turns out is a real name somebody registered in 2007 because of course it is) or similar. There is a 0% chance a user registering that name is going to use it to improve Wikipedia, and most of the time they never appeal so I don't bother creating a user talk page as it just gives them more attention, which is exactly what they came for.