Looking for RocWiki Admins

[AA]

I am trying to get a hold of the RocWiki admin(s) anyone could point
me in the right direction? Thanks

AA

[Joanna Licata]

The active admins are RottenChester, PeteB, RyanTucker, and DaveMahon.  They all read this list.

[Dave Mahon]

I have been quiet lately, but I am still following this list. What can we help you with, AA?

[Pete B]

What can we do for yu, AA?

[Dave Mahon]

Can you explain - specifically - why you would like to have the pages removed? If and when we do agree to remove the pages, Mr. Didak's comments will be removed as well.

In the meantime, despite the negative quality of his comments, I have no way of determining the truth value of his claims and since they are not of a personal nature and I do not feel comfortable removing them. Should you convincingly demonstrate to me your claim that this is a scam, however, I will be happy to remove his comment.

I should also clarify that even though Pete and I are admins, we are not authorized to unilaterally remove whole pages or comments except in the most extreme of cases; the final authority rests in the community that reads and responds to this mailing list.

[BradM]

Dave, I expect that many in the "community" have no clue what this is
all about. I went back over the last 7 days of edits and could find
nothing that seemed untoward. A search for Didak in RocWiki gets no
results. Would it be appropriate to let us know what page(s) are in
controversy, that we might, in fact read and respond.

AND YES - DO VOTE !!! (;>}

[Pete B]

Brad:

He is referring to Stefan Didek's most recent comment on the Aware Bear page:

http://rocwiki.org/Aware_Bear_Computers

"2008-10-21 18:10:28   It appears that AwareBear present themselves using deceptive marketing. Recently they stole one of the images of my website (of my somewhat famous home office) and pasted an individual in there, then printed brochures with it and distributed them in Rochester. You can read the full details on the following page: http://www.stefandidak.com/awarebear.html —Stefan"

[mar...@gmail.com]

I'm going to get in trouble if I add an image of "Sexual Harassment Panda" to this article, aren't I? It's so tempting... :-P

[Pete B]

Step away from the keyboard, Mariah.

[mar...@gmail.com]

Okay, I'll post the song here instead of mangling the article:

Who lives in the east 'neath the willow tree?
Sexual Harassment Panda!
Who explains sexual harassment to you and me?
Sexual Harassment Panda!
"Don't say that! Don't touch there!
Don't be nasty!" says the silly bear.
He's come to tell you what's right and wrong.
Sexual Harassment Panda!

Mariah

[Jay Sweet]

I have a couple of reservations about Didak's post. Mostly, I don't
want to see RocWiki exploited. Putting a link to his own website on
an unaffiliated company's page is pushing the line -- I mean, what if
AwareBear started spamming all computer consultant pages with a link
to their site? The context is different enough in this case to muddy
the waters significantly.

As a compromise, what if the AwareBear folks were allowed to put a
comment w/ link below his, offering a link to an explanation of their
side of the story, and then we ask that neither of them add any
further comments to the article? I dunno, just a brainstorm. I hate
to have RocWiki pulled into the middle of an external copyright
dispute :/

On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Pete B <blu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Brad:
>
> He is referring to Stefan Didek's most recent comment on the Aware Bear
> page:
>
> http://rocwiki.org/Aware_Bear_Computers
>
> "2008-10-21 18:10:28 It appears that AwareBear present themselves using
> deceptive marketing. Recently they stole one of the images of my website (of
> my somewhat famous home office) and pasted an individual in there, then
> printed brochures with it and distributed them in Rochester. You can read
> the full details on the following page:

[BradM]

Thanks Pete, I did not connect Didak to Stefan. I will avoid getting
in the middle of this one.

On Nov 4, 12:18 pm, "Pete B" <blu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Brad:
>
> He is referring to Stefan Didek's most recent comment on the Aware Bear
> page:
>
> http://rocwiki.org/Aware_Bear_Computers
>

> "*2008-10-21 18:10:28* It appears that AwareBear present themselves using

> deceptive marketing. Recently they stole one of the images of my website (of
> my somewhat famous home office) and pasted an individual in there, then
> printed brochures with it and distributed them in Rochester. You can read

> the full details on the following page: [image: [WWW]]http://www.stefandidak.com/awarebear.html<http://www.stefandidak.com/awarebear.html>—
> Stefan <http://rocwiki.org/Users/Stefan>"

[BadFishROC]

I think he (Stefan) posted that there to let people know that Aware
Bear stole an image from his web site for they marketing. I have seen
the flier (and may still have one at work) and they definitely stole
the image.

On Nov 4, 9:44 am, "Jay Sweet" <jay.sw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have a couple of reservations about Didak's post.  Mostly, I don't
> want to see RocWiki exploited.  Putting a link to his own website on
> an unaffiliated company's page is pushing the line -- I mean, what if
> AwareBear started spamming all computer consultant pages with a link
> to their site?  The context is different enough in this case to muddy
> the waters significantly.
>
> As a compromise, what if the AwareBear folks were allowed to put a
> comment w/ link below his, offering a link to an explanation of their
> side of the story, and then we ask that neither of them add any
> further comments to the article?  I dunno, just a brainstorm.  I hate
> to have RocWiki pulled into the middle of an external copyright
> dispute :/
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Pete B <blu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Brad:
>
> > He is referring to Stefan Didek's most recent comment on the Aware Bear
> > page:
>
> >http://rocwiki.org/Aware_Bear_Computers
>
> > "2008-10-21 18:10:28   It appears that AwareBear present themselves using
> > deceptive marketing. Recently they stole one of the images of my website (of
> > my somewhat famous home office) and pasted an individual in there, then
> > printed brochures with it and distributed them in Rochester. You can read
> > the full details on the following page:
> >http://www.stefandidak.com/awarebear.html—Stefan"

> > On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 11:03 AM, BradM <mandellb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Dave, I expect that many in the "community" have no clue what this is
> >> all about. I went back over the last 7 days of edits and could find
> >> nothing that seemed untoward. A search for Didak in RocWiki gets no
> >> results. Would it be appropriate to let us know what page(s) are in
> >> controversy, that we might, in fact read and respond.
>
> >> AND YES - DO VOTE !!!  (;>}
>
> >> On Nov 4, 10:48 am, "Dave Mahon" <david.m.ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Can you explain - specifically - why you would like to have the pages
> >> > removed? If and when we do agree to remove the pages, Mr. Didak's
> >> > comments
> >> > will be removed as well.
>
> >> > In the meantime, despite the negative quality of his comments, I have no
> >> > way
> >> > of determining the truth value of his claims and since they are not of a
> >> > personal nature and I do not feel comfortable removing them. Should you
> >> > convincingly demonstrate to me your claim that this is a scam, however,
> >> > I
> >> > will be happy to remove his comment.
>
> >> > I should also clarify that even though Pete and I are admins, we are not
> >> > authorized to unilaterally remove whole pages or comments except in the
> >> > most
> >> > extreme of cases; the final authority rests in the community that reads
> >> > and

> >> > responds to this mailing list.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Stefan Didak]

Sorry for chiming in late. I had no idea there was a discussion going
on. :-)

As for determining the truth value. Feel free to contact me privately
(or publically) regarding whatever you may wish to know or have
evidence of to satisfy your determination of truth. I would also
happily put you in contact with my attorneys who are currently seeking
Mr. Alves (AA) to serve him his court summons. Would I spend money on
legal fees if it was all some kind of bad joke? I may have a few dimes
too many but I'm not that crazy.

I understand it that Mr. Alves has attempted to convince you that
whatever I've said is a scam or untrue? At least that is what I gather
from the discussion here. I understand the reason for privacy but I'd
be interested in adding such information to the case material that my
attorneys have prepared. Likewise, I doubt Mr. Alves will make any
public statements regarding his business or the various fraudulent
actions he's been caught on. After all, such public statements would
only end up coming back at him in court which I would certainly see
to.

If anything, unsuspecting people should be warned about this company
and its activities. It's bad enough to steal an image of mine but
considering the use of an unauthorized Microsoft logo on the Awarebear
site, an image of an interior designer that was passed off as
something Awarebear was involved in (which has now been replaced with
a more generic image) and the recent information I received about Mr.
Alves creating fake award pages for awards he never received. Add to
that the spamming activities of the past on this very Wiki and you'd
have to starting wondering, wouldn't you? :-)

[Stefan Didak]

I think I hit the wrong button here. Let's try this again, once more
with feeling. :-)

I'm sorry about chiming in rather late but I had no idea there was a
discussion going on regarding the link I added to the AwareBear page.

Based on what I understand from the discussion, AA (Mr. Alves) has
attempted to convince the admins that whatever I published is a
"scam". Nothing could be further from the truth and it appears to be
in line with Mr. Alves' actions and activities regarding the twisting
of the truth.

As BadFishROC said, he has also seen the actual flyer. My attorneys
have several of them as well. Needless to say, if anyone questions
what I have published and wish to test any theories or claims of Mr.
Alves, feel free to contact me privately or publically about this and
I will provide you with any and all evidence to satisfy any curiosity.
My attorneys would also be more than helpful. I know I have a few
dimes too many but does anyone think I file legal suits based on a
scam? I'm not that crazy.

The suggestion that was made to let Mr. Alves bring up their side of
the story in public is interesting but I very much doubt that will
ever happen. The typical con-artist does not make public statements to
bolster a bigger lie because such things can and usually do end up
being used against them in court. Needless to say, Mr. Alves knows
that we are trying to find him (since his business addresses are all
fake) so he can be served his summons that's awaiting him. I doubt
very much he would make public statements that would only bring him
further legal troubles.

Companies that operate like this, using unauthorized Microsoft logo's,
creating fake award pages for awards they never received, replacing
images of interior designers that were stolen (and now replaced on the
AwareBear site), and other forms of copyright infringement and using a
whole range of fake addresses on all the various advertisements they
place online, (not to mention the history of spamming on the RocWiki)
is clearly the kind of business that people should be warned about.

What if a customer is not satisfied and ends up also being unable to
reach this company and its owner? Being on the move like that all the
time and being involved in questionable practices does not seem to be
in the interest of the public who might consider the page on RocWiki
to be an endorsement, advertisement, or otherwise a validation of the
business of AwareBear.

I noticed someone saying that it might be pushing the line for me to
have included a link to my website. Well, logically, because that's
where the images were stolen from and is the most logical place for
people to see why and how it was stolen. I would be more than happy to
register a domain to place the copyright story on that does not
directly link the wiki to my site if anyone feels strongly about that.
Other than that, seeing as I am not in the same line of business as
AwareBear (far from it, in all respects!) it is not like "spamming"
the page of a competitor.

In conclusion, I will bet anyone top dollar that Mr. Alves will NOT
allow publication of what he has attempted to convince the admins of
because he knows that will only add further weight to the legal
trouble he is already in. I, on the other hand, have nothing to hide
with respect to this situation so anyone can feel free to ask and
inquire about anything, publically or privately.

On Nov 4, 4:48 pm, "Dave Mahon" <david.m.ma...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Dave Mahon]

It's unfortunate that I'm writing this at nearly 2am, but such is my life right now. As such, I apologize in advance if anything I say comes out sounding "weird."

We (the AdminGroup) are well aware of the involvement of lawyers on both sides. I can't speak for the other members of the group right now, because I haven't had the opportunity to discuss this with them. However, I think it's fair to share my personal opinion and perhaps others will agree with me.

I feel that this matter is best left to your lawyers. Fighting a pitched battle on a neutral third-party's website really doesn't benefit anybody. I removed your comment, but not out of concern of spamming or inappropriateness. I removed it because I don't want to see RocWiki involved in your personal dispute. I can't speak to the validity of either side and neither can anyone else on the site.

Is it appropriate to comment on business practices? Sure, look at our comments on Wegmans/Talk. However, those are all opinions and you are both involved in litigation to determine the factual status of your respective claims. Until that is resolved, I think it's in RocWiki's best interest if we stay out of it and treat AwareBear's page as if it were a Yellow Pages listing.

[Rottenchester]

I agree with Dave's take on this.

[Stefan Didak]

Dave, I can certainly appreciate your balanced and appropriate views
on the matter and can see nothing wrong or weird about that.

The only thing that sounds weird is that you are, unfortunately,
misinformed about there being litigation on both sides. As far as I
know it's only from one side. Mine. :-) Andre Alves (AwareBear) has
failed to produce any legal representation. My attorneys suggested he
get legal representation and have also not heard a single word
regarding such. If Andre Alves / Aware Bear convinced you that he has
a claim than you (or the AdminGroup) are the only ones who have heard
of that.

It was never my intention to involve RocWiki in any dispute but only
to warn the public about this particular individual and his 'company'.
I would not mind not having a link to my site from the specific
RocWiki page seeing as how search engine results on the appropriate
searches are already sufficient and far more effective at that.

It is unfortunate that Andre Leite Alves / Aware Bear decided to take
this action towards the RocWiki AdminGroup because that does involve
it to some degree. In particular the part where I will be pointing out
(and linking to it from my site) the "weird" sounding things that have
been said here that clearly imply the kind of lies that Alves has been
trying to pass on. After all, it further supports my statements that
he is untrustworthy and a liar. Something I am entirely confident to
state publically. In a way I guess I would like to thank those who
have written things (in this publically accessible group) regarding
the statements that Alves has made. :-)

Of course, any Admins who are in possession of his claims should feel
free to contact me and inform me about those. As I said before, I have
way too many dimes to spare and it would make for a welcome addition
to the dossier since it again shows the fraudulent nature of this
individual and 'company'.

On Nov 11, 7:57 am, "Dave Mahon" <david.m.ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's unfortunate that I'm writing this at nearly 2am, but such is my life
> right now. As such, I apologize in advance if anything I say comes out
> sounding "weird."
>
> We (the AdminGroup) are well aware of the involvement of lawyers on both
> sides. I can't speak for the other members of the group right now, because I
> haven't had the opportunity to discuss this with them. However, I think it's
> fair to share my personal opinion and perhaps others will agree with me.
>
> I feel that this matter is best left to your lawyers. Fighting a pitched
> battle on a neutral third-party's website really doesn't benefit anybody. I
> removed your comment, but not out of concern of spamming or
> inappropriateness. I removed it because I don't want to see RocWiki involved
> in your personal dispute. I can't speak to the validity of either side and
> neither can anyone else on the site.
>
> Is it appropriate to comment on business practices? Sure, look at our
> comments on Wegmans/Talk. However, those are all opinions and you are both
> involved in litigation to determine the factual status of your respective
> claims. Until that is resolved, I think it's in RocWiki's best interest if
> we stay out of it and treat AwareBear's page as if it were a Yellow Pages
> listing.
>

[Dave Mahon]

Mr. Didak,

I have no interest in adjudicating this matter. Nor is it my responsibility to inform you of the status of his legal representation. Further, doing so would be absolutely inappropriate.

I am concerned, however, when it sounds like my words may be twisted to endorse or advocate any view of this unfortunate situation, other than what I believe to be best for RocWiki. If something sounded weird, it was because I had been up since 7am the preceding morning, not because I am trying to hide or protect any privileged, inflammatory or influential information.

All I know for sure at this point is that you feel that you have grounds for IP infringement claims against the owner of AwareBear. When those claims have been resolved legally, then I would gladly welcome your contribution to RocWiki. Until then, however, I would politely discourage either of you - or your employees, friends, family or associates - from contributing comments related even tangentially to your legal matter, an opinion that I expect your legal team would endorse.

[Stefan Didak]

Dave, I respect your integrity and not wishing to provide any
information regarding the lies you've been told. However, I did not
ask you to do so, all I did was put an offer on the table for those
who may have the same or similar information (and less integrity). :-)

I am sure I'm not twisting your words and I'm certainly not trying to
do so. However, your words are your words and they are written in a
public forum that is openly accessible. Hence, you can expect a
response if your words are based on misinformation. In fact, you could
consider that you have, probably completely inadvertently, been making
statements on behalf of an individual that you prefer not to be a
mouthpiece for.

No hard feelings. However, I will give you some legal advice that was
just passed down to me from my attorney and this legal advice is for
you, in the hopes that you can educate yourself a little and gain
something good from what is otherwise a nasty situation. It is usually
best to refrain from making direct and/or public references to a
private discussion that contains misinformation or otherwise details
of a legal nature. Aparantly, from what I just learned, in the case of
litigation you could be called as a witness. I personally see no
reason for that because whatever Andre Alves has said will eventually
reach me (through others with less integrity) anyway but it might be
good to keep it in mind if you ever find yourself in a similar
situation where you end up making references to a private discussion
and, unknowingly and innocently, make implications that could draw you
into something where you shouldn't be dragged into. At least, that is
the summary of what I have just been educated on myself. Again, I
state that I see no reason for that because the litigation against
Alves is crystal clear already and everything else is just petty
noise.

I understand that if you were up since 7am that judgement regarding
words publically published might be a little impaired but I still
appreciate you having written what you wrote because it provides an
interesting (but not surprising) picture of the lengths that Alves
wishes to go through to further incriminate himself by compounding on
some more misinformation towards uninvolved parties.

If you wish to be informed of legal outcomes you can keep track of the
developments on my site (and soon a more dedicated one for the
situation) at which point I'm sure everything will eventually become
crystal clear.

As for friends making comments, I suspect you are referring to
RocWiki. I doubt any "friends" of mine will be making any "tangental"
comments on the RocWiki. Afterall, in relation to the content of Alves/
Aware Bear it does not really rank high enough to be of much interest
I suspect. On the other hand, the page about this ongoing development
is being visited by several thousand people every day and that is
mostly not friends, family or employees. You'll just have to take my
word for it that I neither encourage or discourage any actions of any
individuals.

Any other RocWiki contributers reading this should feel free to
contact me if they have information regarding the actual whereabouts
of Mr. Alves (the fake addresses used by the business we've already
covered). We would be very happy to have him served the summons so we
can "get on" with this and produce some clear final outcomes. If he
keeps hiding and running I may be forced to start offering
rewards. :-)

On Nov 11, 3:32 pm, "Dave Mahon" <david.m.ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mr. Didak,
>
> I have no interest in adjudicating this matter. Nor is it my responsibility
> to inform you of the status of his legal representation. Further, doing so
> would be absolutely inappropriate.
>
> I am concerned, however, when it sounds like my words may be twisted to
> endorse or advocate any view of this unfortunate situation, other than what
> I believe to be best for RocWiki. If something sounded weird, it was because
> I had been up since 7am the preceding morning, not because I am trying to
> hide or protect any privileged, inflammatory or influential information.
>
> All I know for sure at this point is that you feel that you have grounds for
> IP infringement claims against the owner of AwareBear. When those claims
> have been resolved legally, then I would gladly welcome your contribution to
> RocWiki. Until then, however, I would politely discourage either of you - or
> your employees, friends, family or associates - from contributing comments
> related even tangentially to your legal matter, an opinion that I expect
> your legal team would endorse.
>

[Pete B]

Hello friends...

After a conversation with Dave a moment ago and some private email complaints about this continuing issue, I am going to lay this out as clearly as possible. We are in total agreement here.

People are using RocWiki and the Google group to argue positions in a civil case that does not belong in either arena. I have no information on who may have done what nor do I honestly care. As David said it is not our position to ajudicate this matter.

We are happy to comply with any legal requests, however if *EITHER* Stefan Didak or Mr. Alves continue any further attempt to discuss this on EITHER RocWiki or the Google Group, **BOTH** of you (not just one or the other but BOTH) will be banned from both avenues of access.  Any friends, compatriots, employees or people posting similar info will also be banned if need be. This in effect immediately.

You will have access back once we see paperwork stating the matter has be resolved in the proper manner it should be.

This discussion is over.

[Stefan Didak]

Thanks for the clear input, Pete.

I am very sorry that this got dragged into a public forum like this
google group but you should recognize the admin responsibility in
this. After all, it was an admin who dragged it out here in the group.
Dave's *public* response to what was a *private* message he received
from someone else is the direct cause of that. I have no ill feelings
towards Dave having done that which I'm sure was not intentional but
you may want to keep that in mind because I'm convinced that the
RocWiki admins would not want to be known for dragging something into
a public group only to then complain about it.

You can ban me or the whole world of IP addresses for having that
opinion, I don't really care. Anyone who reads this thread can see
that the above is exactly what took place. So maybe the admin group
needs to reflect on that a little amongst themselves.

On Nov 11, 6:30 pm, "Pete B" <blu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello friends...
>
> After a conversation with Dave a moment ago and some private email
> complaints about this continuing issue, I am going to lay this out as
> clearly as possible. We are in total agreement here.
>
> People are using RocWiki and the Google group to argue positions in a civil
> case that does not belong in either arena. I have no information on who may
> have done what nor do I honestly care. As David said it is not our position
> to ajudicate this matter.
>

> *We are happy to comply with any legal requests, however if *EITHER* Stefan

> Didak or Mr. Alves continue any further attempt to discuss this on EITHER
> RocWiki or the Google Group, **BOTH** of you (not just one or the other but
> BOTH) will be banned from both avenues of access.  Any friends, compatriots,
> employees or people posting similar info will also be banned if need be.

> This in effect immediately.*

>
> You will have access back once we see paperwork stating the matter has be
> resolved in the proper manner it should be.
>
> This discussion is over.
>

> ...
>
> read more »