I've seen this suggestion thrown around on other sites in the past, so I hope you don't hide this! This is a legitimate question that - while it may not be a solution we utilize - is a great chance to at least explain why, which I feel is always valuable here on META. This is a largely unproductive addition to the site for several reasons:
1. Context is Key
Moderating on any issue larger than a by-the-books solution instantly becomes a scenario so nuanced that showing instances of rules being broken would hardly even be helpful. At the end of the day, moderating is all about people, and how people handle and manage other people - these communications are filled with different combinations of biases, temperaments, and histories that can alter how a moderator and user interact. All of these are variables that will affect the procedure and penalties for any rule being broken, and rightfully so: rulings are equally important as the events leading up to why a moderator is making that ruling in the first place.
2. The Lengths of Display
"Okay, so show us all the different contexts for the rule-breaking too."
We're not writing a 100+ page manifesto for every single moderating action that's ever been taken on the sites, because that's what it would take to do so much context even a little bit of justice. Not only is that an enormous time investment, but it would easily become an info dump so detailed that it would be unlikely to ever be useful to anyone.
3. Mini-Modding
The more guidelines and resources beyond the basic rules our mod team makes public, the more and more this happens: users who think they know just as much or more about the rules and feel they can take it upon themselves to police the website and do everything short of the moderator pressing that "hide" button.
The most that needs to be done is a flag on a post or comment so that a moderator is notified. Leave the moderating to the users with the tools to do it; the reason I say this is because posting even basic examples of these rules being broken is only going to encourage more and more users to try and take matters into their own hands and attempt policing posts when instead they should simply be notifying a mod if they feel something may need a look-at. That's what we're here for - no fuss!
4. Scars are just Reminders of the Wounds
Citing and immortalizing real issues puts a spotlight on what were at one point troublesome situations or problematic users. I think it's safe to say raising any awareness of these points or individuals is absolutely unneeded. I get that the solution is to redact names, but I think it's safe to say we're all familiar with the tight-knit, gossipy nature of the community at this point - not necessarily a bad thing, just a quality that should be considered regarding this sort of thing! For this point alone I would argue that this is perhaps not the best approach, even if only from the viewpoint of community culture.
Ultimately I feel the time-honoured tradition of "learn as you go" is the best way this issue gets handled! It's organic, efficient, and is by no means unreasonable to ask that newer users simply take a few days rolling with the punches as they learn and understand how the community and its tools function. If a user truly wants to be part of this community, they'll stick it out. And if a user is partaking in the community in earnest, no major ruling or action is going to be taken beyond what is essentially correcting some little mistakes!
TL;DR: Experience goes a longer way than detailed explanations and entries (ironic - given this answer!). A specific worry over a specific rule at the user-level means less to the community than the intentions behind what any specific user says or posts, and I think that's something that every user on the site - moderator or not - sees and takes note of just fine without a mega-thread chronicling it all.
