Wikiproject:Antispam/Archives/2022/Enzo Zelocchi



Long term cross-wiki promotion of the titular person.



1 September 2022: Enzo Zelocchi


There seems to be a sustained (possibly paid) campaign to create promotional articles for Enzo Zelocchi across various language editions of Wikipedia, generally using newly-registered accounts that make no substantial main namespace contributions before or after creating an article for Zelocchi. I am not aware of any sockpuppet investigations to date. Potentially involved accounts:

Jamie7687 (talk) 06:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. Deleted on fr-wp + account Vonlinka blocked. FYI, @Jamie7687, most of the sources/references used on fr-wp did not contain the name of Enzo Zelocchi. Best, — Jules* talk 20:53, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the update, and good point about the sources/references used. Jamie7687 (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be the same on every language. For example, [1] and [2] do not say Enzo Zelocchi has been considered for the film Zorro, as written in the Wikipedia articles. en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enzo Zelocchi is also interesting.
  • I asked for a speedy deletion on it-wp and es-wp (@MarioGom:), and I will do the same on zh and ko.
  • @ネイ: hi, could you review the ja-wp article (especially the sources), and if it seems appropriate, delete it?
— Jules* talk 21:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Done Deleted on it-wp. Thanks @Jules* for reporting.--TrinacrianGolem (talk) 21:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What else can be done to make sure that the remaining two articles (on jawiki and arzwiki) have been reviewed? Thanks to all who have contributed to this so far. Jamie7687 (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Done Deleted on jawiki and blocked Seyjack. ネイ (talk) 09:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an administrator (or even another editor) on arzwiki who is involved with the Antispam project, or somebody who could reach out? I'm pretty sure Zelocchi doesn't meet their notability criteria either, and it's the last Wikipedia that still has an article for this person. Thanks, Jamie7687 (talk) 20:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jamie7687 I don't think so. Maybe you can write on arz:ويكيبيديا:صالون_المناقشه; it's their village pump. — Jules* talk 19:15, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Done Deleted on arzwiki, it was a translated article. HitomiAkane (talk) 19:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Jamie7687 (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
New article created at simple:Enzo Zelocchi, by new account ErT451 (CA · xwiki · COIBot report). I have requested quick deletion there. Jamie7687 (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article has now been deleted. Jamie7687 (talk) 15:40, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Zelocchi's enwiki article was re-re-re-created today, and then re-re-re-deleted, this time with protection against being re-created by new users. Still a persistent spam topic, though. Jamie7687 (talk) 01:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked Sweirinal (CA · xwiki · COIBot report) on en.wp, locks requested, Wikidata item nominated for deletion. MER-C 17:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikidata item was kept. To be created as a separate archive page given the persistence. MER-C 09:09, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say that judging by the old items that fill this page, and previous archiving discussions that I've seen, I was expecting the opposite: that old resolved items would be archived from here (e.g. the ones that aren't from this year and don't show signs of persistence), while sections dedicated to persistent spammers stayed on the main page for visibility. I'm likely mistaken about that, but I would like to know where this archive page would be, and how it would be discoverable by others. Jamie7687 (talk) 14:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, what you describe is what will happen: I'll (or you) can create a new dedicated case linked from Wikiproject:Antispam under archives (see e.g. Wikiproject:Antispam/Archives/2021/Wikibusiness). MER-C 16:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, though, I thought things were to be archived when there was no activity for a while. This is persistent spam that started over a year ago, with new activity yesterday. Shouldn't archiving start with the items above this one that haven't been active in over a year? I don't see how a section about an active and persistent spammer should be moved to anything called an "archive"; again, I could be wrong, but you also didn't answer my question about visibility/discoverability. If this were in a page in the archives, how would people know to look for it in the archives? I would think active cases would be here, and even if I'm mistaken, it seems like others might think that as well. Sorry if I'm misunderstanding; the idea of archiving the active cross-wiki spammers just seems backwards to me. Jamie7687 (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If that were the case, this page would pretty much be all Wikibusines and Papa2004. In this case all the spam is deleted as far as practical. MER-C 17:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]