Coincidentally, there was another instance of academic dishonesty earlier today, but I was unsure of how to respond to it; I asked the informer how they wanted it to be dealt with and acted accordingly. But this got me reflecting on the issue today...
I am against cheating as much as anyone, but at the moment, my thoughts have coalesced around the notion that our policy should be one of not punishing cheaters via moderator action such as suspension. As a user of the SE network, a cheater has not (necessarily) produced spam or insults, committed sockpuppet voting with their accounts, gone on a downvoting campaign against another user, etc.; in fact they may be a model user of the site in every respect. While it is satisfying to some extent to see them punished in any way, I don't think it's our place to be doing it through the site. It feels somewhat like saying: "someone has been committing burglaries with the use of their car; let's have the traffic police arrange to give them undeserved tickets."
To whatever extent is possible, we should help to make sure they are dealt with in real life (though the moderators and the SE team are unable, as far as I can tell, to assist with any knowledge of their personally identifying information), but that is all we should do. Unless the user has provided identifying information publicly, I think we will have to be content with notifying the course's professor of the existence of a cheater, providing the professor with the cheating user's questions and the posted answers so they can compare with what has been submitted to them, and if requested, the temporary deletion of the user's posts (as was done in this case).
When I think of how I'd like cheaters to be dealt with on the site, I think more of this example. Someone with knowledge of the course catches the cheater, all the cheater's questions are commented on to let other users know not to provide answers, other users are free to express their disapproval with downvotes, and the contact of the professor of the course is organized. Notably, none of it required moderator intervention (though again, when notified we would be happy to help any way we can). Perhaps this would be analogous to having a neighborhood watch in which everyday drivers spread the word to form a car-phalanx in front of the houses known to be on the burglar's list (okay, I have stretched this analogy too far).
As this is meta, I understand completely if readers would like to downvote this if they disagree. I'm not 100% behind it myself; but it is what I am thinking currently. There may well be ramifications of my proposed policy that I haven't thought of, and I would appreciate if people could point them out. I can also imagine that many people may simply disagree with the seriousness with which this proposal takes moderator-inflicted punishment; they might say "the SE network is just a game compared to real life, we should feel free to suspend users in whatever manner we want." I would understand that sentiment as well, and again, I invite people to discuss it here.
Lastly (and perhaps ironically?): I am quite busy with studying for finals and applying to grad schools, so please understand if I am slow to respond.