I love getting all philosophical about how much DMoz sucks and how Wikipedia
shouldn't be like it but in a case like this it's best to avoid labels
("spammers" vs. "self-proclaimed super editors") and just look at the
actual
case history.
Here's the complainant's account:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nsusa
Most of his contributions were not spammy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Restless_legs_syndrome&diff=p…
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Castle_Rock%2C_Colorado&diff=…
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Highlands_Ranch_Mansion&diff=…
This one probably merited rollback:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Web_hosting_service&diff=prev…
If he had included his external links as <ref>s instead of in the External
links section, noone would have cared.
I don't care about the namecalling on either side. There's tons of
assumptions of bad faith on both sides here.