actually there is a policy against meatpuppets and sockpuppets.
One exception to the principle of assume good faith concerns the use of sockpuppets. This tactic is commonly employed by vandals and bad-faith contributors who create multiple user accounts in an attempt to bias the decision process. A close variation is to enlist "meatpuppets", people from outside Wikipedia to "run in" (for example, if my article about a web forum is up for deletion and I post a call for other forum members to "help keep our website in Wikipedia"). Signs of these tactics are that a contributor's account was created after discussion began, that a contributor has few edits or that a contributor's other edits have been vandalism. Other Wikipedians will draw attention to such facts and may even recommend deletion simply because apparent sock- or meat-puppets piled in with "do not delete" or other similar comments.
Unfortunately, (vandalism aside) such cases are notoriously hard to distinguish from good-faith contributors writing their first article or from anonymous users who finally decide to log in. If someone does point out your light contribution history, please take it in the spirit it was intended - a fact to be weighed by the closing admin, not an attack on the person.
so yeah.... they are technicly just trying to protect against idiots. which is the lesser of two evils, possibly alienating a user that truly knows what they are doing, or being inundated by idiots.
personally i think it is a temporary issue because anyone that truly knows and loves a subject will stick around gain a nice little post count and thereby gain credibility, where sockpuppets and meatpuppets will disappear. Think of this as the wiki equivalent of those jerks that come around ask how to bump a lock and then are gone like a fart in the wind.
