Well Jacob, to be honest, I'm not "reading" the sites definition. The issue of metagaming predates any written definition here on the site, and my policy against metagaming was formulated before such a definition, and far before I became a moderator. I'm not doing this because I'm a moderator, I'm doing this because this is what I actually think is right.
Here's how I read the FAQ quotation.
Definition: A meta-gamer is someone in more than one game who lets one of his games influence how he plays in another one. Example: The classic example is threatening a stronger player in a weak game with a country in a different game where the tables are turned.
See, while the example is specific, it clearly does not address other serious forms of metagaming, and the definition is in my view, pretty open. What does it matter if it's technically metagaming that someone looks at rankings if it's not frowned upon? Nobody's ever going to get banned or even criticized for minor metagaming, so I don't see the issue with calling it metagaming...
I assure you that moderators will not get trigger happy. It was never the idea to have us as some sort of presiding power, by which you must all fear our authority... We're simply here to help the community. I thought it was to be a pretty informal and equal relationship. Let me tell you, our worst nightmare is to punish an innocent player. If you read the e-mail thread in which kestas announced our positions as moderators, you can tell right away that our initial fears were false positives, and the tone was set as such. When figlesquidge was made a mod later, he was just as squeamish, and would get second opinions (sometimes fifth opinions!) on every decision he made. There's usually discussion, even in some of the most blatant cases of multi accounting.
In areas with no precedent set, we've always deferred to the community. Disagreements will always come up, but I hope we can all reach an acceptable compromise. I just didn't think it would actually involve invoking definitions and the concept of legal precedent... but perhaps the site's grown enough that formal rigour is required?
Your example is valid and is why it makes it extremely difficult to identify metagaming. This is what I've been talking about. The real issue with serious metagaming isn't, in my mind, whether it's unfair, but whether or not you can seriously enforce it without the very real danger of false positives. This has been my stance before I was a moderator, and persists now. This forum doesn't have sticky threads, or even an accessible archive, but I assure you, these issues have been debated pretty consistently throughout phpDip's history, and pre-date moderators.