Was the Wikidata removal on purpose? https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2521591

Thank you for the thorough comment. You changed my mind. I now agree that the attorney example is too self-promoting and could have been 3-4 words, and that its word redundancy is spammy.

Hello, welcome to OSM.
.
You requested a review. Your edit looks good.
.
You improve it by marking the entire area as a pitch and not just a point.

I agree to that line. (And I'd suggest leaving the description too if it's factual and not spammy).
.
But the second POI in particular: The right tagging was used, office=lawyer, and the description is completely factual and not spammy, "Personal injury attorney assisting clients throughout McAllen & Pharr Texas who have been injured in car, motorcycle & truck accidents."
.
node/4989363747/history

It seems the majority of this changeset is real, clear cut spam, though.

Just another comparison to draw a clear line between spam and self-interest driven neutral edits:
SPAM: node/4885634483/history
.
Not spam: node/4989363747/history

For comparison, this is something I would flag as spam for the excessive ad tone, and I would justify its removal: node/5135107648/history

Although the intentions are clearly good, in my humble opinion this is harming the map and must be discussed.

That was one example, but a significant number of your reverts do not remotely qualify as spam, and I think no one would have had any problem if an experienced mapper had added them.

Hi woodpeck. I think your definition of spam is too broad. For instance, this random POI: node/4923689269
.
Yes, its editor has only one edit. And yes, the editor has a direct interest in advertising their POI. However, these facts do not make it spam. Let's analyze the removed tags one by one:
.
website: valid site. The site also points out at this exact location, so he's not randomly spraying ads around the map. He added the tags on his real physical shop.
email: seems like a valid shop email, it even has a domain identical to the site
phone: nothing wrong with that.
description: Not the slightest ad tone.
.
Suppose I'm the one who added those tags. I don't think you would have reverted. They're just fine. Now there's nothing wrong for the shop owner to add those same tags, even if out of self-interest.

How come it's a cycleway with no cycle access allowed??

Welcome to Openstreetmap!
.
You should make the angles perfect 90 degrees. Click the building, then click the "square" icon. Viola!

Oh, I was reviewing via OSMCHA and I have a long backlog, and it seems that particular node was added back. Please ignore my comment if all the non spammy nodes were reverted.

For instance, this has a slightly "positive tone" but seems to be a 100% valid node: node/5109075827
.
I think your definition of a "spammy description" need to be narrowed.

I think the algorithm is horrible.

All fixed:
changeset/53218768
.
changeset/53219333

Hi matresh, you've made some very destructive edits, but you then fixed them and also some good edits. (You forgot fixing some of them and I'm fixing them now). Is everything OK?

Reverted obviously bad edit.

I suspect the user is intentionally vandalizing.

You forgot junction=roundabout