arXiv

[khrap...@hotmail.com]

Impunity Raises Crime.

Recent News story in "Nature" (432, 428, 2004) "Rejected physicists
instigate anti-arXiv site" surprised me. The fact of the matter is the
arXiv's activity borders on crime. As to me, the arXiv's moderators
insulted me, lied to me and to a member of the Advisory Board, they
sent me viruses.

Now the arXiv has become a vital communicative resource for the physics
community. In the past www.arxiv.org has been touted as an intellectual
center where freedom of thought fuels the creative juices of the most
brilliant minds on the planet. The arXiv was an excellent enterprise.
The result, Ginsparg had said, was to "level the playing field." It was
exellent that unlike articles submitted to professional journals,
papers submitted to the archive were immediately available online, at
no cost to the user. Also unlike articles submitted to professional
journals, postings to arXiv.org were not peer-reviewed. Except for some
rudimentary screening for inappropriate off-topic submissions, almost
anyone could post almost anything. It was up to the reader to decide
what was worthwhile. Bill Steele wrote, "In one incident, Lubos Motl,
an undergraduate physics student at Charles University in Prague, Czech
Republic, scooped the Ph.D.s with an elegant solution to a major
problem. On the Internet, it seems, no one knows you're an
undergraduate" (http://www.physics.cornell.edu/profpages/Ginsparg.htm,
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/July01/ginsparg.archive.ws.html).

Unfortunately, nowadays P. Ginsparg and the arXiv have changed
considerably as well as America as a whole. The new Endorsement System
of the arXiv (17 Jan 2004) buried Ginsparg's idea about a free archive

The new Endorsement System supports mafia's structures in scientific
community, which were broken by Ginsparg's excellent enterprise. The
new Endorsement System abases and humiliates scientists. It opens a way
to plagiarism: a potential endorser does not endorse a paper and then
publishes its result as his/hers own result. In contrast with this,
when a scientist submits a paper to a professional journal, he receives
an acknowledgment which confirms his copyright.

The new Endorsement System puts obstacles in the way of publishing real
new ideas, which contradict routine paradigm. A potential endorser
"should not endorse an author if the author is unfamiliar with the
basic facts of the field". I think Maxwell with his displacement
current; Boltzmann and Einstein would have problems with endorsers.
Genius Janosh Bolyai found only his father as an endorser.

At the same time, the new Endorsement System endorses antiscientific
papers because "arXiv admin" don't expect an endorser to read a paper
in detail, or verify that the work is correct. Before, antiscientific
papers, which incorporated in the arXiv, were not endorsed at all.

The new Endorsement System confirms irresponsibility of the "arXiv
admin" who can lie to even members of the Advisory Board and send
viruses to obstinate scientists. They "reserve the right to suspend a
person's ability to endorse for any reason". They write about
responsibility of endorsers, but there is no word about responsibility
of Moderators and the arXiv administrative team. They write who can
endorse, but there is no word about who can be Moderators and the
"arXiv admin".

Verily I say unto you, impunity raises crime.

The statement, "Existing submitters may not require endorsement for
topics in which they have been active" is a lie. Endorsement System is
sickening. But, I understand some people are apprehensive about the
impact free online publishing of scientific information on traditional
journals.

My own arXiv story is presented at
http://www.ArchiveFreedom.org/freedom/Khrapko.html. Here I add
documents about viruses that I received in 2002.

As I was blacklisted by arXiv, I complained to "ArXiv admins" and to
members of the Advisory Board of arXiv about the blacklisting. A member
of the Advisory Board, Prof. Shochet, received a response from the
arXiv and he sent a letter to me. They wrote that I was not
blacklisted, i.e. they lied to Prof. Shochet. I received the letter
from Prof Shochet, but at the same time I received six infected
messages during ten days.

Let us face the facts. The first infected message, "Here to find out
more!", was sent on 02 Aug 2002 06:52:42 (-0500). Prof. Shochet sent me
the letter, "Re: arXiv", on 2 Aug 2002 17:20:18 (-0500). Thus, he had
received a response from the arXiv administrators before five o'clock
PM. Therefore the time interval between sending the virus to me and
sending the response to Prof. Shochet was less than 10 hour. I use the
Internet since 1999 and never got viruses before August 2002. Thus the
probability of the random coincidence of the infected message and the
Shochet's letter is less than (10 hour)/(3 years) = 10^{-6}. But I
received six infected messages during 10 days. If these messages were
independent, then the probability must be decreased by a factor [(10
days)/(3 years)]^5 = 10^(-10). Apparently those six infected messages
had a single source.

The source used only four addresses, ta...@k804.mainet.msk.su,
khrap...@hotmail.com, www-...@arXiv.org, jph...@iop.org, in six
messages. The six pairs of addresses in the messages were:
1) khrap...@hotmail.com, www-...@arXiv.org,
2) khrap...@hotmail.com, www-...@arXiv.org,
3) khrap...@hotmail.com, www-...@arXiv.org,
4) khrap...@hotmail.com, ta...@k804.mainet.msk.su,
5) khrap...@hotmail.com, ta...@k804.mainet.msk.su,
6) khrap...@hotmail.com, jph...@iop.org.
If the address book of the source contains ten addresses, then the
probability of such a set of pairs is (3/9)^6 = 10^{-3}. If the address
book of the source contains hundred addresses, then the probability of
such a set of pairs is (3/99)^6 = 10^{-9}.

Now let us estimate the probability of an existence of a source that
contains the four addresses simultaneously.
The address ta...@k804.mainet.msk.su was used by Moscow Aviation
Institute only for sending my submissions to arXiv. So, my colleagues
and friends outside my institute did not know this address. On the
other hand, I do not know my colleagues and friends inside my
institute, which sent letters to arXiv and/or to Journal of Physics A
(jph...@iop.org). But I informed arXiv that my paper was considered by
JPA. Apparently the only address book, which can randomly contain the
four addresses, is the arXiv's main address book, but arXiv cannot be
infected. So we must cast away a supposition about effectively random
pulses. The infected messages are kept at my email server and are
accessible to a court.

Radi Khrapko

[khrap...@hotmail.com]

[khrap...@hotmail.com]

I would like to present here some additional facts.
In summer 2003 I sent some letters about the arXiv to
gins...@cornell.edu, sshe...@leland.stanford.edu
fen...@virginia.edu, sho...@hep.uchicago.edu,
cis-...@cs.cornell.edu; award-abst...@nsf.gov, LSB...@nsf.gov,
and others. I had no answer, but in September 2003 my email box was
overflowing with infected messages of 144 or 156 KB (only). I was
deleting them, but they were coming again in a minute. I reported these
messages to http://www.spamabuse.org/reportspam_main.aspx,
secu...@verizon.net, and ab...@verizon.net 75 times, but I had no
answer.
Since those September I did not receive infected messages during 19
months.
But, on May 14, 2005 Dr Paul LaViolette posted my arXiv story at
http://www.ArchiveFreedom.org/freedom/Khrapko.html.
And on May 16, May 17, and May 18, 2005 I received three infected
messages of 144 KB!
Unfortunately, nobody is interested in what is the source of these
messages and who is the criminal.
Radi Khrapko.