I'm sincerely at a loss as to how an allusion to someone having multiple accounts compromises that person in any way. Kewpie did not even specify the other account(s). And again, the context allowed perfectly for the joke.
She shouldn't have done it--because you can't? Because you don't have the ability? Well... So? I'm sure you can do some things that she can't. Some yoga position? A difficult piano piece?
Explain to me why this "outing" worries--i.e. exercises--a very few people so much.
But yes, it seems David has asked them not to do it. I would expect her earlier "reprimand" on the matter may in fact have been nothing more than an explanation to her of the administrator's wishes on the matter--unusual wishes, in my experience, as plenty of forums discourage multiple accounts for a single user. You're acting as if they're a staple of life, perhaps something covered by the Bill of Rights.
Please, explain to me why it matters. Just because other people don't know about something doesn't mean it's "private." It more likely means it's trivial.
And no, I haven't noticed that "many" users put one another's names in bold, à la celebrity journalism. I read it as emphasis. A thousand pardons for the Moses crack.
"Listed below" were about the only responses, I think, the second being a joke, and the first wasn't an expression of shock at Kewpie. It was EOH being dramatic, as usual.
Then, NRITH being an ass.
Compare this joke, apparently taken well by the butt of it, and revealing nothing real about anyone, to NRITH's dishonestly baiting Dave and others to his site, noting their IP addresses, and not just comparing the raw, numeric addresses to look for overlap, but searching those numbers in reverse-lookup directories which typically reveal a person's location, employer, or school. He didn't have to do that to see who was pretending to be whom. But he did, and I think he'll admit it, dishonest as he is.
And this was a "prank." I think a prank has to have a comic side, doesn't it? Maybe a punchline? The Paris Hilton and Norman accounts were pranks. Obsessing about them was not. How could it have been? In the words of Peter Cook, I enjoy a good joke, as soon as I know about it. NRITH's snooping, on the forum and in the chatroom, has been dishonest, invasive, and apparently about nothing except gaining leverage over other users as well as a sense of these moderator "powers," the abuse of which quite worries you! I have my own issues with the moderation on this site, but the rejection of NRITH's pleas to be made a mod seems like brilliant judgment in retrospect.
But my initial post about this was only a joke about the irony of NRITH being indignant over invasions of privacy. I hope I don't appear as obsessed as, oh................
Another RL prob solved. 
