I dont think he had/has only two forum accounts but I dont have solid proof (see my previous post). If he caused an especially large amount of damage by the use of using a large number of sock puppets, that would reflect poorly on him and maybe the flags are warranted. If he used a small handful of accounts to bump spam for only a short time that stopped many years ago, it might be best to forgive and move on.
Continuous dishonest behavior has not stopped and by the looks of it is not stopping. A single account being sold without any victims warrants the account being flagged, ICO bumping on any scale warrants more.
That is what matters. Do we now have to ask OgNasty to clarify this? Sigh.
If it really matters (I don't think it does in the grand scheme of things) then yes, it should be up to the campaign manager when the rule is worded as stupidly as it is.
Why are you so keen on exact wording to the very detail? This is unnecessary in general around here unless we are analyzing actual legal contracts or similar. Somebody else can ask OgNasty to comment on it if they want, I will not bother him with this though.