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 Also unlike articles submitted to professional journals, postings to arXiv.org were not peer-reviewed.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.
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, khrapko...@hotmail.com, www-ad...@arXiv.org, jph...@iop.org, in six messages. The six pairs of addresses in the messages were: 1) khrapko...@hotmail.com, www-ad...@arXiv.org, 2) khrapko...@hotmail.com, www-ad...@arXiv.org, 3) khrapko...@hotmail.com, www-ad...@arXiv.org, 4) khrapko...@hotmail.com, ta...@k804.mainet.msk.su, 5) khrapko...@hotmail.com, ta...@k804.mainet.msk.su, 6) khrapko...@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.
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.
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, khrapko...@hotmail.com, www-ad...@arXiv.org, jph...@iop.org, in six messages. The six pairs of addresses in the messages were: 1) khrapko...@hotmail.com, www-ad...@arXiv.org, 2) khrapko...@hotmail.com, www-ad...@arXiv.org, 3) khrapko...@hotmail.com, www-ad...@arXiv.org, 4) khrapko...@hotmail.com, ta...@k804.mainet.msk.su, 5) khrapko...@hotmail.com, ta...@k804.mainet.msk.su, 6) khrapko...@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.
I would like to present here some additional facts. In summer 2003 I sent some letters about the arXiv to ginsp...@cornell.edu, sshen...@leland.stanford.edu fend...@virginia.edu, shoc...@hep.uchicago.edu, cis-d...@cs.cornell.edu; award-abstracts-i...@nsf.gov, LSBr...@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, secur...@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.
|
