We've remarked already on some of the peculiarities of the APA's purported "Code of Conduct," but one aspect I've not seen discussed is this (again, bizarrely overreaching) provision:

While sometimes unavoidable, anonymity in online posts should be used judiciously.

In what possible sense is anonymity "sometimes unavoidable"?  One can either post using one's name or not.  And what constitutes "judicious" usage of anonymity?   Surely, for example, a blog like Feminist Philosophers with many pseudonymous posters operating for years under their pseudonyms–e.g., "Philodaria," "Monkey," "Magical Ersatz," "Lady Day," "Prof Manners"–are not using anonymity "judiciously" but continuously, effectively shielding themselves from being accountable for what they write.  And such anonymity is clearly avoidable, as others (for example, the philosophers Anne Jacobson and Jennifer Saul) post under their own names at the very same blog.

Or what about the new StormFront for philosophers blog?  The pseudonymous contributor and commentator "Criticus Ferox" is basically a NeoNazi–is it "judicious" use of anonymity for this individual to conceal his vile moral deformities by not associating them with his actual person?

And for those who take the APA Code of Conduct seriously–maybe at least its drafters (about whom more soon) if no one else–do they not have an obligation now to "out" these philosophers using anonymity unjudiciously, and thus in "violation" of the Code?

Did anyone even think about these issues before producing this document?

ANNALS OF SHAMELESS HYPOCRISY:  Amy Oberlding (Oklahoma) responds to the preceding by lamenting lack of "charity," even though she misreads the preceding in a way that is transparently uncharitable as even one of her co-bloggers points out.  But Prof. Oberlding's response is par for the course in philosophy cyberspace, where sanctimonious hypocrisy is the norm.