As you probably know by now, Patterico got results. Not necessarily the results he would have wanted, but results nonetheless. Patterico’s one-time nemesis, L.A. Times Columnist/blogger/sock puppet Michael Hiltzik has been suspended, and his column and blog terminated, as a result of the infamous sock puppet incident. While some (read: me) might argue that the Tribune Co. should have canned Hiltzik years ago simply for being an asshat, apparently asshattery is not a hanging offense among L.A. Times journalists. Posting comments under pseudonyms, however, is. Per the editors’ note:

Hiltzik did not commit any ethical violations in his newspaper column, and an internal inquiry found no inaccurate reporting in his postings in his blog or on the Web. But employing pseudonyms constitutes deception and violates a central tenet of The Times’ ethics guidelines: Staff members must not misrepresent themselves and must not conceal their affiliation with The Times. This rule applies equally to the newspaper and the Web world.

That logic seems a bit strained, to say the least. Has any reader of this here blog, or of any other blog I’ve posted a comment on, been “deceived” by my handle? If so, how? Did my calling myself Xrlq cause you to honestly believe that my real name was “Xrlq,” or that I was some other person who I’m not? At most, my posting here under the name “Xrlq” should have led you to believe I am the same individual who calls himself Xrlq while posting comments or guest blogger entries at Patterico’s Pontifications, Captain’s Quarters, or anywhere else – which happens to be true (unless someone is out there spoofing my identity, in which case, he, not I, am the one doing the deceiving). Using a pseudonym is not equivalent to lying about one’s identity; it is equivalent to stating truthfully that you do not wish to disclose it. My refusal to disclose my identity is no more or less “deceptive” than any of the three unsigned editorials that the L.A. Times staff runs every day.

All this assumes, of course, that you are upfront about the fact that your pseudonym is a pseudonym. That’s not an issue if you call yourself something like Angry Clam, Armed Liberal, Atrios, Boi From Troy, Caltechgirl, Flap, Hesiod, Ith, Little Miss Atilla, Mean Mr. Mustard, Moxie, Patterico, Publius, Romanesko, Uncle, Spoons, Xrlq or Zombyboy, which no one in his right mind should ever confuse with anyone’s real name. Similarly, if you call yourself Beldar (what happened to him, anyway?), no one will assume your real name is Beldar, even if in reality, it almost is. Things gets a little dicier if you go with a pseudonym like “Leopold Stotch,” which is obvious to hard-core South Park fans but non-obvious medium-core fans, and indecipherable to anyone else. Where it really becomes a problem is when you pick a normal joe’s regular-sounding name, which could easily be your real name, but isn’t. If your real name is Samuel Clemens but you’d rather write under the name Mark Twain, great, but in that case, the least you could do is to disclose on your sidebar that your real name isn’t really Mark Twain – if only to protect the privacy of the Twain family, whose bratty son Mark already gets them enough flak as it is.into enough trouble as it is.

Paradoxically, in addition to being far too broad, the L.A. Times staff’s claim that “employing pseudonyms constitutes deception” is also overly narrow. I don’t know what Michael Hiltzik’s middle name is, or even if he as one, but assuming he does, what if it happened to be … oh, I dunno … Kosinski? If it was, then Michael Kosinski Hiltzik could argue that “MikeKosHi” is not a pseudonym at all, just a clever variation on his real name. Ditto for a series of comments by Mike, Michael, Mike H., MKH, M. Kosinski, etc. All that’s allowed, right? Technically, yes – but non-technically, no; it’s sock puppetry, just as the inappropriate use of an obvious pseudonym would be.

Finally, having the same rule apply equally to the newspaper and “the Web world” seems a bit overbroad in its own right. From where I sit, everything Michael Hiltzik did on the Golden State Blog was company business, but what he did on other people’s blogs, he did on his own time. Imagine that Hiltzik’s offense had been not the implicit lying of pseudonymy (according to the L.A. Times) or of sock puppetry (according to almost everyone outside the tent), but an outright fabrication. Does anyone seriously believe Jayson Blair would have been fired by the N.Y. Times if his Times stories had all been accurate, and the now-infamous creative writing that got him canned had all been confined to a personal weblog? And if not, why on earth should Hiltzik get in trouble for doing the same on other people’s weblogs?

In the end, I think the L.A. Times did the right thing in Hiltik’s case, but for the wrong reason. Ending Hiltzik’s Golden State Blog is a no-brainer; few L.A. Times staff writers get to have a company blog, so why hand that privilege out to the guy who’s arleady abused it? Dropping the column, suspending him and reassigning him seem reasonable enough also, for two reasons. First, while I disagree with the L.A. Times’s policy prohibiting its journalists from ever using pseudonyms, I do think that at some level, rules are rules. They may not be good rules, but regardless, Hiltzik knew about them, and should have followed them. Second, contrary to the implication of the editor’s note, Hiltzik’s misconduct was not confined to “the Web world” at large; some of it occurred on a web site owned and controlled by the L.A. Times, and all was done to promote his L.A. Times column, his L.A. Times blog, or both.