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=pr... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Castle_Rock%2C_Colorado&diff=p... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Highlands_Ranch_Mansion&diff=p...
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.