My application for a Pseudonym

[Kurtilein3]

I don't quite get it. Didn't you use an alias on YouTube?  When you used your own name there,  you can surely do it here too. Our neutrality policy (plus  lack of visibility)  is such that threats are not likely to occur to us citizens. If you used an alias on YouTube, you can use your own name here, for how are your enemies to know that the person who is writing sensible and neutral articles for CZ is the same as the one who uploaded inflammable videos?

Kurtilein3 is not my real name. Youtube has my email adress, which contains my real name, but i am confident that they will not publish it without my permission. youtube doesnt even ask for a real name if i remember correctly. 

So my face is out there, linked to my nickname, Kurtilein3, but my real name never got out there, at least not linked to my youtube channel or my face.

Personally i think that pseudonyms should not be used frequently on Citizendium, and only when there are good reasons. But when they are used, i would say they should be recognizable as such, and not be made to look like real names. People should be able to easily tell the difference. I am already using the nickname Kurtilein3 on youtube, and actually i already made a video comparing Citizendium and Wikipedia with a very positive view about Citizendium. I also want to link to my Youtube-channel from my Citizendium-account (if i get one), so using Kurtilein3 as my pseudonym on Citizendium would be the obvious option.

Anyway, back to topic. Maybe in the future there could be policies that regulate in which circumstances a pseudonym can be granted, and some kind of sound decision process. Right now i am still waiting for a response to my email, the request for a pseudonym that i sent to personnel@citizendium.org . If there would be some kind of decision process already going on about my case behind the scenes, then i would suggest that one of the early steps in the process would be to send an email to the person that sent the request (in this case me). Because i didnt get any response so far, i think i should assume that there is a roadblock somewhere.

[Matt Innis]

I don't quite get it. Didn't you use an alias on YouTube?  When you used your own name there,  you can surely do it here too. Our neutrality policy (plus  lack of visibility)  is such that threats are not likely to occur to us citizens. If you used an alias on YouTube, you can use your own name here, for how are your enemies to know that the person who is writing sensible and neutral articles for CZ is the same as the one who uploaded inflammable videos?

Kurtilein3 is not my real name. Youtube has my email adress, which contains my real name, but i am confident that they will not publish it without my permission. youtube doesnt even ask for a real name if i remember correctly. 

So my face is out there, linked to my nickname, Kurtilein3, but my real name never got out there, at least not linked to my youtube channel or my face.

Personally i think that pseudonyms should not be used frequently on Citizendium, and only when there are good reasons. But when they are used, i would say they should be recognizable as such, and not be made to look like real names. People should be able to easily tell the difference. I am already using the nickname Kurtilein3 on youtube, and actually i already made a video comparing Citizendium and Wikipedia with a very positive view about Citizendium. I also want to link to my Youtube-channel from my Citizendium-account (if i get one), so using Kurtilein3 as my pseudonym on Citizendium would be the obvious option.

Anyway, back to topic. Maybe in the future there could be policies that regulate in which circumstances a pseudonym can be granted, and some kind of sound decision process. Right now i am still waiting for a response to my email, the request for a pseudonym that i sent to personnel@citizendium.org . If there would be some kind of decision process already going on about my case behind the scenes, then i would suggest that one of the early steps in the process would be to send an email to the person that sent the request (in this case me). Because i didnt get any response so far, i think i should assume that there is a roadblock somewhere.

I've been checking into your situation, but keep in mind that I am not privy to your email because we intentionally set up the process so that people with name issues were not known by anyone but the Chief Constable (and maybe one or two others - I don't even know that).  You case is being discussed behind the scenes, at least among constables.  I am still not involved in the decision and wouls expect that none of us will know if you get one, or if you don't get one.  I suppose you will just show up as a new user and we won't be able to know it was you.  I am personally glad we do it that way, because I would feel really bad if I accidently outed someone and they were hurt as a result.

Having said that, I'm not sure that we care to bring that kind of controversy to Citizendium.  I think we can likely discuss these subjects with people who use their real names and manage to be professional at the same time.

[Hayford Peirce]

I see that in a Wikipedia article about some aspect or other of Scientology at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeping_Scientology_Working Kurtilein is engaged in rather acrimonious bickering about a quotation that he keeps putting in and that others remove.  On his own User talk page he has this comment about the matter:

"then add sources instead of just removing this information from the article. if you keep removing it, then i will need to get the help of others to make sure that this information will be included into the article and stays there. but i dont think you will manage to keep this information out of the article for long. Kurtilein (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)"

I don't think that this shows the proper understanding of the way Citizendium, for instance, is set up to work.  If you put in a piece of (inflammatory) information without proper sourcing, and then are asked to source it, you don't reply that it is up to the *other* person to find the source.

As I recall, wasn't there someone in one of the semi-fringe (or entirely fringe) articles who recently took the same attitude?  Ie, "I put this statement in here and it's true.  If you don't like it, go find the sources.  *I* know where they are, but why should I bother to put them in here?"

That person, of course, is no longer with Citizendium.

Do we need any more of this attitude, particularly from someone who wants to operate under a pseudonym?  My own vote, if we were having a referendum on the matter (which, of course, we're not), would be "No."

[Matt Innis]

I guess there is some concern that upset Scientologists might take action against anyone who trods on their image, maybe even enough that an offender might fear for their life.  Whether that fear is justified, I don't know, but there was a time (and I suppose there still is in some places) where objectivity was not welcome and certainly lives were lost.  I'm just not sure that we have the program in place to even assume that a pseudonym will be sufficient to protect anyone anyway.  It may well just give a false sense of security.

Maybe it's better to just go by your real name and blame your information on your sources.

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

I see that in a Wikipedia article about some aspect or other of Scientology at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeping_Scientology_Working Kurtilein is engaged in rather acrimonious bickering about a quotation that he keeps putting in and that others remove.  On his own User talk page he has this comment about the matter:

"then add sources instead of just removing this information from the article. if you keep removing it, then i will need to get the help of others to make sure that this information will be included into the article and stays there. but i dont think you will manage to keep this information out of the article for long. Kurtilein (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)"

I don't think that this shows the proper understanding of the way Citizendium, for instance, is set up to work.  If you put in a piece of (inflammatory) information without proper sourcing, and then are asked to source it, you don't reply that it is up to the *other* person to find the source.

As I recall, wasn't there someone in one of the semi-fringe (or entirely fringe) articles who recently took the same attitude?  Ie, "I put this statement in here and it's true.  If you don't like it, go find the sources.  *I* know where they are, but why should I bother to put them in here?"

That person, of course, is no longer with Citizendium.

Do we need any more of this attitude, particularly from someone who wants to operate under a pseudonym?  My own vote, if we were having a referendum on the matter (which, of course, we're not), would be "No."

Another point on resource management vs. fringe topics. Note that I didn't say potentially inflammatory; mainstream politics and war certainly can be.

Hayford, it's probably safe enough for you to say anything about tennis, but I'm not sure about soccer hooligans -- of course, if they aren't literate...

The comment about being able to keep information out for long certainly doesn't apply here, if, for example, a Religion Editor (if that were the workgroup for Scientology) ruled it was not sourced.  Nevertheless, and again I know Hayford personally doesn't want to write top-level articles and I respect his decisions, I'd rather see writer-editor (for want of a better term) spent on writing contextualizing core and high-level articles than fighting battles about such things as Satanic ritual abuse, the evils or blessings of Scientology, etc.

[Arne Eickenberg]

If you put in a piece of (inflammatory) information without proper sourcing, and then are asked to source it, you don't reply that it is up to the *other* person to find the source.

As I recall, wasn't there someone in one of the semi-fringe (or entirely fringe) articles who recently took the same attitude?  Ie, "I put this statement in here and it's true.  If you don't like it, go find the sources.  *I* know where they are, but why should I bother to put them in here?"

That person, of course, is no longer with Citizendium.

Rightfully so.

Do we need any more of this attitude, particularly from someone who wants to operate under a pseudonym?  My own vote, if we were having a referendum on the matter (which, of course, we're not), would be "No."

That's a good argument, but atm I'll stick with my previous opinion: If Kurtilein can provide clear evidence that his life is in danger, if he uses his real name at Citizendium, then it would be a good reason to allow a pseudonym in his case. (Someone, and not just one person, at CZ needs to know his real name however. A bunch of constables maybe, board members etc.)

[Peter Schmitt]

Kurtilein3 is not my real name. Youtube has my email adress, which contains my real name, but i am confident that they will not publish it without my permission. youtube doesnt even ask for a real name if i remember correctly. 

I cannot follow this logic. If the YouTube nickname is not yet linked to the your name,
then registering silently under the real name would have been quite innocent.
(After this discussion, however, there is a slight danger that such a connection might be guessed.)

I also want to link to my Youtube-channel from my Citizendium-account (if i get one), so using Kurtilein3 as my pseudonym on

Why link to a cause of problems?

[Matt Innis]

Kurtilein3 is not my real name. Youtube has my email adress, which contains my real name, but i am confident that they will not publish it without my permission. youtube doesnt even ask for a real name if i remember correctly. 

I cannot follow this logic. If the YouTube nickname is not yet linked to the your name,
then registering silently under the real name would have been quite innocent.
(After this discussion, however, there is a slight danger that such a connection might be guessed.)

I also want to link to my Youtube-channel from my Citizendium-account (if i get one), so using Kurtilein3 as my pseudonym on

Why link to a cause of problems?

I assume it's because he/she intends to say the same things here that get him in trouble everywhere else.  Kurtilein3, do you really think that they can't find out who you are even with a pseudonym?

[Kurtilein3]

Kurtilein3 is not my real name. Youtube has my email adress, which contains my real name, but i am confident that they will not publish it without my permission. youtube doesnt even ask for a real name if i remember correctly. 

I cannot follow this logic. If the YouTube nickname is not yet linked to the your name,
then registering silently under the real name would have been quite innocent.
(After this discussion, however, there is a slight danger that such a connection might be guessed.)

I then would not be able to do most of the things that i would like to do here. One topic where i would like to contribute is juggling. How many people on Citizendium contribute to articles about juggling? People on youtube already know that i am a juggler. So as soon as i tell people on youtube that i am active on Citizendium, they will look at topics im interested in and then look at the revision history of Citizendium articles about those topics. But talking about Citizendium on youtube is definitively among the things i would like to do.

I also would like to put a picture of myself on my Citizendium userpage, another thing that i could not do. With a pseudonym, instead of my real name you would get my real face.

Another point on resource management vs. fringe topics. Note that I didn't say potentially inflammatory; mainstream politics and war certainly can be.

Hayford, it's probably safe enough for you to say anything about tennis, but I'm not sure about soccer hooligans -- of course, if they aren't literate...

The comment about being able to keep information out for long certainly doesn't apply here, if, for example, a Religion Editor (if that were the workgroup for Scientology) ruled it was not sourced.  Nevertheless, and again I know Hayford personally doesn't want to write top-level articles and I respect his decisions, I'd rather see writer-editor (for want of a better term) spent on writing contextualizing core and high-level articles than fighting battles about such things as Satanic ritual abuse, the evils or blessings of Scientology, etc.

Do not assume that i would write about all the topics that i talk about on youtube here. Somehow this whole discussion is turning into a strange direction. When someone uses his real name and decides that he/she wants to have a Citizendium account, does it matter how seriously the person takes wikipedia, or what topics the person wants to get involved in on Citizendium? If something i write is being deleted, then of course i care much more about the fact that it has been deleted than i care about the reasons, especially if the reasons are not sound. On wikipedia, it is okay to leave unsourced material in the article temporarily, they have those "citation needed"-tags, and the whole situation would have played out completely different if people would THINK, just for a moment, before they revert.

Do we need any more of this attitude, particularly from someone who wants to operate under a pseudonym?  My own vote, if we were having a referendum on the matter (which, of course, we're not), would be "No."

That's a good argument, but atm I'll stick with my previous opinion: If Kurtilein can provide clear evidence that his life is in danger, if he uses his real name at Citizendium, then it would be a good reason to allow a pseudonym in his case. (Someone, and not just one person, at CZ needs to know his real name however. A bunch of constables maybe, board members etc.)

@ Hayford Peirce: Are discussions like this normal when someone wants a normal Citizendium account? You are having this referendum right here, in this thread, or at least thats how it feels. Please keep in mind that the purpose of my request for pseudonym is to find out if i could get a Citizendium account with a pseudonym instead of a normal one. But that is not even the purpose of this thread. The purpose of this thread was to find out if my email got lost, or if someone is looking into it. I got this answer by now. Please note that my attitude on wikipedia is not representative of my attitude in general, because i dont take wikipedia seriously, i cannot, because of my past experiences with the community over there. Misapplication of policies is rampant on wikipedia, as is edit warring.

@ Arne Eickenberg: I cannot. it is all a matter of probabilities. All i can show is that there have been numerous death threats against me, and a threat by a scientology member to send private investigators after me, which has been substantiated by the fact that another scientologist here in munich let me know at a picket that the local ORG is aware of my activities on youtube. So there is a chance that i might get in trouble if my real name gets out there, and i am not willing to take that chance. It is not a certainty that my life is in danger. Also, scientology doesnt kill critics, they "fair game" them. It doesnt kill you, its designed to take away your time / money / job / reputation, its designed to stop you from criticizing scientology by forcing you to struggle to keep your life in order and defend against frivolous lawsuits.

By now, posting in this thread really doesnt feel comfortable anymore. I feel like my whole online identity is being x-rayed here, everything gets pulled in and dissected and i feel the need to justify this and that and respond to a million of points that are being raised.

...
Having said that, I'm not sure that we care to bring that kind of controversy to Citizendium.  I think we can likely discuss these subjects with people who use their real names and manage to be professional at the same time.

I can read between the lines. Thanks for your support.     


now this new post came in while i was writing:

Kurtilein3 is not my real name. Youtube has my email adress, which contains my real name, but i am confident that they will not publish it without my permission. youtube doesnt even ask for a real name if i remember correctly. 

I cannot follow this logic. If the YouTube nickname is not yet linked to the your name,
then registering silently under the real name would have been quite innocent.
(After this discussion, however, there is a slight danger that such a connection might be guessed.)

I also want to link to my Youtube-channel from my Citizendium-account (if i get one), so using Kurtilein3 as my pseudonym on

Why link to a cause of problems?

I assume it's because he/she intends to say the same things here that get him in trouble everywhere else.  Kurtilein3, do you really think that they can't find out who you are even with a pseudonym?

(irony) I have to consider this for a moment...   You are right, i wasted my life trying to take a stand for the truth and trying to warn people about scientology and trying to promote humanism and non-dogmatic thinking and democracy and human rights, even to islamic fundamentalists and rightwing neofascists that write death threats against me. It turns me into a troublemaker and puts my life at risk, and noone likes troublemakers. I should shut up like most others do, and forget about my idols, like Noam Chomsky, Nelson Mandela, Ayan Hirso Ali, Kofi Annan, Amy Goodman, Michael Moore, Bertrand Russel. They are all wrong, you are right, noone likes troublemakers.(/irony)

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

(irony) I have to consider this for a moment...   You are right, i wasted my life trying to take a stand for the truth and trying to warn people about scientology and trying to promote humanism and non-dogmatic thinking and democracy and human rights, even to islamic fundamentalists and rightwing neofascists that write death threats against me. It turns me into a troublemaker and puts my life at risk, and noone likes troublemakers. I should shut up like most others do, and forget about my idols, like Noam Chomsky, Nelson Mandela, Ayan Hirso Ali, Kofi Annan, Amy Goodman, Michael Moore, Bertrand Russel. They are all wrong, you are right, noone likes troublemakers.(/irony)

Well, last Sunday, I gave a presentation called (not my title) "Torture in Perspective" to the Harwich, Massachusetts Humanist Society...not only with my real name, but in person.  The title was more for publicity, but I addressed torture in the context of interrogation, and U.S. policies about its use in interrogating terrorist suspects -- as well as alternative means of interrogation. It is a slide version of things I've written about extensively here, under my own name. I'll be giving it again in about 3 weeks to another group.  I've also written here about radical Islam.

The audience response rather pleased me, as it was no longer a search for people to blame, but a recognition of the need for more linguists and area specialists.

Of your list above, Mandela is the person with the most effect -- who was far more disciplined. In my personal opinion, a Chomsky, Moore, or Russell are not terribly effective, because they tend to go for the dramatic. Obviously, I don't have direct experience in German politics, but a steady and careful approach, over time, does have effect in the U.S.

It's been many years, but I have confronted American Nazis, admittedly engaging in a battle of wits with someone not really qualified to do so. But do take your idols, and note that they don't use pseudonyms.

[Matt Innis]

I assume it's because he/she intends to say the same things here that get him in trouble everywhere else.  Kurtilein3, do you really think that they can't find out who you are even with a pseudonym?

(irony) I have to consider this for a moment...   You are right, i wasted my life trying to take a stand for the truth and trying to warn people about scientology and trying to promote humanism and non-dogmatic thinking and democracy and human rights, even to islamic fundamentalists and rightwing neofascists that write death threats against me. It turns me into a troublemaker and puts my life at risk, and noone likes troublemakers. I should shut up like most others do, and forget about my idols, like Noam Chomsky, Nelson Mandela, Ayan Hirso Ali, Kofi Annan, Amy Goodman, Michael Moore, Bertrand Russel. They are all wrong, you are right, noone likes troublemakers.(/irony)

If you only knew.  I think you've missed one of my major concerns, though.  Do you think a pseudonym is going to keep you safe?  Surely anyone that really wants to can find a way to find out who you are even with a pseudnym.

[Kurtilein3]

(irony) I have to consider this for a moment...   You are right, i wasted my life trying to take a stand for the truth and trying to warn people about scientology and trying to promote humanism and non-dogmatic thinking and democracy and human rights, even to islamic fundamentalists and rightwing neofascists that write death threats against me. It turns me into a troublemaker and puts my life at risk, and noone likes troublemakers. I should shut up like most others do, and forget about my idols, like Noam Chomsky, Nelson Mandela, Ayan Hirso Ali, Kofi Annan, Amy Goodman, Michael Moore, Bertrand Russel. They are all wrong, you are right, noone likes troublemakers.(/irony)

Well, last Sunday, I gave a presentation called (not my title) "Torture in Perspective" to the Harwich, Massachusetts Humanist Society...not only with my real name, but in person.  The title was more for publicity, but I addressed torture in the context of interrogation, and U.S. policies about its use in interrogating terrorist suspects -- as well as alternative means of interrogation. It is a slide version of things I've written about extensively here, under my own name. I'll be giving it again in about 3 weeks to another group.  I've also written here about radical Islam.

The audience response rather pleased me, as it was no longer a search for people to blame, but a recognition of the need for more linguists and area specialists.

Of your list above, Mandela is the person with the most effect -- who was far more disciplined. In my personal opinion, a Chomsky, Moore, or Russell are not terribly effective, because they tend to go for the dramatic. Obviously, I don't have direct experience in German politics, but a steady and careful approach, over time, does have effect in the U.S.

It's been many years, but I have confronted American Nazis, admittedly engaging in a battle of wits with someone not really qualified to do so. But do take your idols, and note that they don't use pseudonyms.

First of all i would like to say that i think that what you do is great, more people should be that active.

If i would have the opportunity to talk in front of a large audience, or to give interviews, or if i would get into journalism, or if i would get active in politics, then my identity would be known and in this situation it would be a price i am willing to pay. But right now i do not have these opportunities. I want to be a part of Citizendium, but i dont want it badly enough to pay the price of disclosing my real identity. It might definitively happen in the future, and if disclosing my real name opens an opportunity that i consider to be more valuable than the increase in security that my anonymity brings with it, then i will take it. But that time is not now, it has not come yet.

If you only knew.  I think you've missed one of my major concerns, though.  Do you think a pseudonym is going to keep you safe?  Surely anyone that really wants to can find a way to find out who you are even with a pseudnym.

It does increase my safety, and i dont think that it is easy to find out my real name right now. You would need to track me down here in munich, which would probarbly be possible, or you would need to have the power necessary to force youtube or the Citizendium constabulatory (or one of a few other possible targets) to disclose my name, or hacking into my computer would also be an option. I even search for my real name on different search engines to check for possible leaks every now and then, and when i do it i switch my IP and delete cookies before and after i do so. I am careful.

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

First, thank you for the discussion. It has made me think, not only in terms of Citizendium but a bit more broadly, using some background in intelligence and special operations.

If I were seriously worried that my commentary would endanger me--and what I'm going to say would be a violation of CZ rules--I'd probably build a reasonably complete synthetic identity and register under the synthetic "real name."  I'd use some paraphrasing techniques so a qualified analyst would have a very hard time using word choice and structural analysis; there are some non-obvious means of validating text from a claimed source or comparing samples to determine a real identity.

I'm afraid, though, that this discussion is moving me more and more in the direction of no pseudonyms at CZ, simply because I don't think they are compatible with the environment that I think many of us want to build.

[Larry Sanger]

We have an established policy about pseudonyms, which we very rarely give out--you can search on the wiki for the policy--as well as a person that the applications are sent to (the Chief Constable).  I don't know why she hasn't responded to this particular request, but since someone brought it to my attention, I'm simply forwarding it to her.  If she doesn't respond, I hope someone will let me know and I will address this myself, or just tell Matt himself to address it.

[Larry Sanger]

Also, since this whole thread was started in violation of one of our rules--people who talk here must use their own real names, even if they are not Citizens--I'm shutting down this particular thread, and advising the person who requested a pseudonym to work with Ruth and me (and maybe Matt) via e-mail.