If you think this specific case was abusive, then make your case.

I perfectly understand that anonymity isn't absolute, here or elsewhere. But I do think that if anonymity is offered at perlmonks it ought to be with the implied trust that the information necessary to subvert anonymity is not only highly restricted, but that such subversion only be made in extraordinary circumstances. Thus, I think *any* peeking by those with such powers is an abuse of that power unless a case of extraordinary circumstances can be made to justify it.

You may consider the present case to be harmless, especially since the OP didn't seem to mind that their identity was discovered by at least one administrator, but that doesn't lessen the transgression. Violating anonymity should never be done on the basis of not seeing the harm in a particular case, but whether the value of doing so outweighs breaking the expectation of trust (of all). Even if you thought you could provide information the poster might consider valuable, you could just as easily have posted that you could relay that information if they chose to reveal themselves in a private /msg (their choice, not yours).

In short, IMHO, you're asking the wrong side to make their case.