The author describes outing him at a later occasion.

That means the person is not kept anonymous, his name is simply not included in this article.

Now, I think that omitting his name makes the article better, because it removes a distraction.

On the whole i think that whether or not his name should be mentioned depends on whether or not his behavior has changed -- with some bias in favor of not mentioning him, because... well people should be allowed to learn and improve themselves?