There are certainly instances in which it's appropriate for an article to be 'anonymous' or under an established pseudonym. For example, most people would accept it on an article in which the author provided deeply personal information, such as about a medical condition. Similarly, it was once common for magazines to feature regular columnists who wrote under a nom-de-plume (although, in truth, it's pretty rare these days except where a publication has run such a column for many years and the original author is probably long dead and forgotten). Neither of those criteria generally apply to the kind of articles that appear in Arrivee and I find it hard to understand why someone would want to contribute something to the magazine yet conceal their identity from the majority of readers.
It's also worth remembering that AUK has grown considerably in recent years and the majority of members probably don't have clue (or care) who nicknames from a quarter of a century ago, or longer, refer to. Arrivee is intended as a magazine for all the membership, not a clique. So, as Giropaul says, if there are nicknames used in a piece, there should also be some explanation of who the relevant people are/were and, perhaps, how the nickname came about.
