Hi, Marc.
Marc Riddell wrote:
I am still puzzled by why the persons being moderated (censored) on this List need to be held so close to the vest; is there a stigma attached to it? There are some excellent voices on this List, and if some power somewhere decides one or more of them needs to be censored, I want to know who they are choosing to shelter me from.
I can think of a few reasons.
First, as others have mentioned, there's being considerate. Being on moderation is a black mark, and there's no particular reason to expose that information externally. Even internally to the list, announcing moderations isn't an unmixed good. Sometimes difficult people have useful contributions, and announcing that they're on moderation can prejudice people against the useful bits.
Second, a lot of antisocial behavior on the internet is driven by, or at least thrives on, getting recognition or a reaction. The less we do to feed that, the better. See [[WP:DENY]] for more on that.
Third, spam is a huge issue these days. The best thing you can do with spam is to make it vanish; any informational leakage can and will be exploited by spammers.
Fourth, it's what's easiest. We're all volunteers here, and moderating a list this size is plenty of work on its own.
William
P.S. As a side note, let me mention that it's polite to trim what you're replying to down some. The point of the quoted text is to give enough context so that your message makes sense. Too much and it goes from becoming an aid to your readers to a disservice.