Talk:Free Republic/Archive 5

message: And I don't consent to the current sandbox version.  I'll be back onto this topic when I am not busy making money...  :-) --BenBurch 03:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am back, withdraw my statement of withdrawl, and will work actively on the article as long as Jossi is in charge of this mediation. - F.A.A.F.A. 03:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent. Look forward to everybody's comment, including BenBurch's. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still Here. 

message: The "compromise version" that I have put together is available at Talk:Free Republic/Sandbox/Compromise version.
Please write your comments below, in bullet format, maximum 5 bullets per editor. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Tempest in a teapot" accurately describes the material that is the subject of so much argument. There hasn't been so much attention from the mainstream news media, as attention from progressive-minded talkboards and blogs who find such activities objectionable. Of course those talkboards and blogs generate Google hits just like the New York Times. My compliments to Jossi for a situation well handled. DP1976 19:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the kind words ... but we are not done yet. As we say in Spanish "No cantes gloria antes de la victoria" (Don't sing glory before victory). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will be traveling all through the holiday weekend and I will be off the Net. I suspect the others may be doing the same. This will be my last Wiki posting period until Tuesday night, December 26 at the earliest. Welcome to the discussion, DP1976 If anyone wants some proof that death threats against government officials have been posted at DU, with never a mention in the DU article here at Wikipedia, just click on this link  The Secret Service was actually investigating these death threats. And of course, DU hasn't been entirely angelic about posting personal info of people they don't like  but once again, you'll never hear a whisper of anything like that in the DU article at Wikipedia ... and everyone have a very Merry Christmas and a busy and prosperous New Year. -- BryanFromPalatine 00:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you could study up on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources and Wikipedia:Original_research over the holidays. What you would like to have included in the DU article is forbidden by policy, just like the homophobic and other vitriolic comments by Jim Robinson plucked from FR itself which you want included. Why am  I not surprised that you're defending Michell Malkin, someone many consider to be one of the most hate-filled extremists on the far right fringe of the far right. Not many pundits are accused of helping drive someone to suicide. AFAIK, Michelle stands alone in that regard! RIP Denice Denton Happy Holidays and don't drink too much eggnog. - F.A.A.F.A. 01:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What you would like to have included in the DU article is forbidden by policy ... You just don't get it. It doesn't appear in the DU article and I'm not trying to change that. All I'm saying is that it doesn't belong in the FR article either. DU is a reliable source about what happened to DU, and DU is saying that the Secret Service investigated DU for death threats against government officials.  Why am  I not surprised that you're defending Michell Malkin ... FAAFA, I would defend anyone's right, including yours, to be protected from the disclosure of personal information on a website that is seething with rage and loathing for her. Unfortunately for Mia Lawrence, the bankruptcy process requires the disclosure of personal info; and when it was carried to TheSmokingGun.com and then to Free Republic, it had already been disclosed and was in the public domain. -- BryanFromPalatine 01:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compromise version 

message: * The lead paragraphs contain an abundance of negative material, unlike the Democratic Underground and Daily Kos articles, whose lead paragraphs contain absolutely zero negative material.
*  The article contains much, much more than 25% "controversy and criticism" (C&C), unlike the Democratic Underground and Daily Kos articles. I cut and pasted the entire article into Microsoft Word, removed footnotes and section headlines, and used Word Count. The result was 1,283 words; of those, 591 words (46%) are negative. 
* Inclusion of the "Bahraini," "death threat" and "owner of a restaurant" paragraphs violates WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Removing them, and the negative material in the lead, would remove the undue weight objection and bring it in at around 25% C&C.
*  The references include (A) an article by Todd Brendan Fahey (#1), who is not a reliable source, and (B) a Salon article (#6) which again violates WP:NPOV#Undue weight. On a positive note, the self-published articles by Pitt and Niman have been removed from the external links. 
-- BryanFromPalatine 04:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by {{user|BryanFromPalatine}}

message: * - Still way too much OR, unsubstantiated FR claims, and links to FR. 
* - 'Rathergate/Memogate' - Wiki articles about the blogs/forums Free Republic, Little Green Footballs and Power Line all claim to be 'instrumental' in breaking/solving Memogate. Drudge too, I think. Which is it?  The info on Buckethead should note that he is a GOP attorney/operative. Way too much info on Memogate. The article is supposed to be about FR - not Memogate
*- WAPO/LAT lawsuit info. More POV expressed through links to FR, FR's answer rather than the court decision, and selective use of info. FR lost the lawsuit, and IMHO WAPO / LAT acted magnanimously by letting them off the hook for $5,000 x 2 instead of putting them out of business. The lawsuit info is not 'criticism'. FR broke the law posting the full text of copyrighted articles. Here's a better link 
*- Not enough right wing (or left wing criticism) included. Bryan himself noted "as you are well aware, there are many conservatives who don't like the way Jim Robinson runs Free Republic. In fact, there are some communities of banned Freepers who harbor at least as much animosity toward FR as you do" Much of this criticism is from blogs and forums, but it at least needs to be documented. Numerous new forums have started in response to FR's shift in direction the last 6 years. This shift has been so radical that their 'Mission statement' is IMHO demonstrably false and shouldn't be included. see The Fahey article helps. The links to Will Pitt and Niman are needed. More positve info needed too - counterprotests, fundraising for good causes, letter writing to soldiers in Iraq, etc.
*-The article should include info on Chad Castagana. His actions were so notable that he's been dubbed 'The UnaFreeper' creating a whole new neologism.
F.A.A.F.A. 05:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by {{user|Fairness And Accuracy For All}}

message: * See Self-published sources in articles about themselves, this allows us to give links to FR, a usually unreliable source, in order to explain the website in the article.
* Rathergate gave FR a huge amount of exposure of any time its history by independent media outlets.  There are several reliable sources given that highlight the role the website played.  What is relevant about Buckhead is that he is a member of FR, and media outlets covered his role in the scandal in that context.
* The WaPo/LA Times lawsuit and the settlement are notable, and they should be described in the most NPOV way possible.
* As a compromise I am not completely opposed to the inclusion of the previous criticism, however they should not be given undue weight.  I think it can be summed up in a paragraph, the Democratic Underground article may serve as a model.  Links to other sites that claim they are spinoffs of FR cannot be included, especially not some geocities site, it is original research. 
* As I have stated numerous times, Castagana has no place in this article.  His relationship to FR is as incidental to his alleged crimes as a membership to the local YMCA would be.  And that "whole new neologism" pops up on a whopping 4 different websites on Google.
--RWR8189 19:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by {{user|RWR8189}}

message: * Self-published sources in articles about themselves, states FR can be used as a source for FR internal mechanics such as rules, administrators, moderators.
* Properly contructing a Google search can alter results a great deal. Free Republic + CBS = 355,000 hits. Buckhead posted a pinpoint accurate challenge to the authenticity of the Killian memos within 19 minutes of the start of the CBS News broadcast that revealed them. No other blog or website even comes close to that. This event deserves substantial coverage. It resulted in firing, forced resignations or early retirement of five senior executives, including Dan Rather, who had been a regular fixture on CBS News for over 30 years. 
* The WaPo/LA Times lawsuit settlement was not a case of the news corporation, Tribune Co., feeling sorry for Jim Robinson. The FR legal team was hell on wheels during the appeal. You should read their appellate briefs. They are available online. Brian Buckley, an attorney known at FR as Clarity (and nephew of William F. Buckley), sliced and diced the WaPo/LA Times attorneys on appeal. The settlement of that case for less than half a penny on the dollar was a genuine David killed Goliath victory. And if you think it wasn't controversial or that there wasn't one hell of a lot of criticism piled on FR for posting entire WaPo/LA Times articles, then like Judas Priest said, you've got another "think" coming. The settlement completely erased the summary judgment. So there was no court finding that FR violated copyright law, or that FR caused any damages. If you ask me, they got away with murder. John Wayne Gacy has been mentioned here. Imagine Gacy getting a $10,000 fine and walking out the front door of the courthouse after his trial. No jail time. "Mr. Gacy, you are free to go." That's how newsworthy and shocking and controversial it was in the realm of copyright law.
* Neither space (25%) nor undue weight limitations permit the inclusion of Castagana, Bahrain, cyber stalking or death threats. There are other objections to such material that I haven't even discussed. The space and undue weight arguments should be more than enough.
* Remove the negative stuff from the lead.
* Remove the negative stuff from the lead.
* Remove the negative stuff from the lead.
* Remove the negative stuff from the lead.
With all due respect to everyone concerned, how many times does that have to be said? Really, How Many Times? ArlingtonTX 00:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by {{user|ArlingtonTX}}

message: Before registering as 12ptHelvetica I have been contributing here at Wikipedia without registering an account for over two years. Please don't be confused by the short history in my "talk" or "contribs" links. In all of my time here at Wikipedia, I have never seen an article that was more slanted than this article before Bryan went to work on it. Let's remember who slanted it in the first place.
* We must try to remember who is calling Castagana "the Unafreeper." It is the fanatic left-wing partisans at Democratic Underground and Daily Kos, and it is a reflection of their hatred of the Freepers. Buckhead's claim to fame was produced by his participation at FR. Chad Castagana's claim to infamy (or notoriety) was produced without any real connection to his particpation at FR. Buckhead is in; Castagana is out.
* The Bahrain, cyber stalking, death threats etc. are out. Undue weight, 25% rule, call it whatever you want. Without any of that, there's already more negative stuff than you'll find in the Democratic Underground and Daily Kos articles. And let's examine the true nature of these alleged death threats. What exactly was posted that has the left-wingers all in a lather? Don't even try to tell me that nothing like that has ever been posted about Bush, over at DU or dKos, but there is no mention of that in their articles. It has been alleged that the cyber stalking event was the work of a DU mole. If it appears in the FR Wikipedia article, the mole would be richly rewarded for his work. Also recall that the information published about the Chuy's manager was in the public domain, because she had declared bankruptcy and her bankruptcy documents were previously posted at the Smoking Gun.  There have been inappropriate "calls to action" at DU as well, notably calling for a "denial of service" attack against FR's now defunct British sister site (Free Britannia) but again there is no mention of that in the DU article. [www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/707033/posts] [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/552159/posts] There should be no negative stuff at all in the lead paragraphs because there isn't any in the lead paragraphs of the DU and dKos articles.
* The site owner's comments on homosexuality, evolution etc. should be in. Robinson is a reliable source about what Robinson believes.
* The Rathergate and LA Times incidents should get more attention than they're getting.
* Bryan wrote a much better and more balanced article at the link he provided. The Salon article he mentioned is just a way to get the cyber stalking incident in through the back door, so it's out. The William Rivers Pitt and Michael Niman articles are not only heavily biased trash, they're self published, so they're out. Fahey has no credibility for the reasons Bryan has cited, so he's out. - 12ptHelvetica 01:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by {{user|12ptHelvetica}}

message: * The editing and mediation process is well advanced. I'll compare Free Republic to the Muslim religion. A tiny percentage of its members are radicals on some sort of jihad. Their behavior is objectionable. However, the vast majority are peaceful and inoffensive. When speaking of the entire group, we must be careful not to offend the vast majority who are harmless.
* Since Chad Castagana's Free Republic account was not used to cause any mischief, he shouldn't be mentioned here. Since the cyber stalking incident involved posting of material that was already in the public domain as 12pt described, that incident shouldn't be mentioned here. If the "call to action" had resulted in a "freep" of the restaurant, and especially if it had resulted in damage to the restaurant, an injury to anyone, or any other great disturbance, then I would say it should be covered in detail. But that is not the case. I have read the comments that have been characterized as a "death threat" against the Clintons and that doesn't belong here either.
* In all respects, Free Republic must be handled in precisely the same way as Daily Kos and Democratic Underground. This means there must be nothing negative in the first two paragraphs; that all the material that is negative should be placed at the bottom of the article; and that it must not constitute more than 25 percent of the total article length.
* We should not link to William Rivers Pitt, Michael Niman or Todd Brendan Fahey for the same reason that we do not link to the Stormfront.org website in an article about the Jewish religion. Their hatred for Free Republic clouds their judgment and their objectivity. They are incapable of treating this topic fairly.
* I am a latecomer to this project. As an opponent of the war and a lifelong Democrat, I oppose Free Republic and all it stands for. But I oppose hypocrisy and double standards as well. Treat them the same way DU and Dkos have been treated. DP1976 18:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by {{user|DP1976}}

message: Thank you for your comments and the orderly manner in which you made these. It is very helpful to me (and I hope to you as well) to be able to read the main points of contention. I will take these comments into account on the next revision of the compromise version. I hope to have this new version ready by tomorrow, for a second and last round of comments and subsequent edits. Thanks again for your participation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Tempest in a teapot" accurately describes the material that is the subject of so much argument. There hasn't been so much attention from the mainstream news media, as attention from progressive-minded talkboards and blogs who find such activities objectionable. Of course those talkboards and blogs generate Google hits just like the New York Times. My compliments to Jossi for a situation well handled. DP1976 19:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the kind words ... but we are not done yet. As we say in Spanish "No cantes gloria antes de la victoria" (Don't sing glory before victory). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will be traveling all through the holiday weekend and I will be off the Net. I suspect the others may be doing the same. This will be my last Wiki posting period until Tuesday night, December 26 at the earliest. Welcome to the discussion, DP1976 If anyone wants some proof that death threats against government officials have been posted at DU, with never a mention in the DU article here at Wikipedia, just click on this link  The Secret Service was actually investigating these death threats. And of course, DU hasn't been entirely angelic about posting personal info of people they don't like  but once again, you'll never hear a whisper of anything like that in the DU article at Wikipedia ... and everyone have a very Merry Christmas and a busy and prosperous New Year. -- BryanFromPalatine 00:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you could study up on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources and Wikipedia:Original_research over the holidays. What you would like to have included in the DU article is forbidden by policy, just like the homophobic and other vitriolic comments by Jim Robinson plucked from FR itself which you want included. Why am  I not surprised that you're defending Michell Malkin, someone many consider to be one of the most hate-filled extremists on the far right fringe of the far right. Not many pundits are accused of helping drive someone to suicide. AFAIK, Michelle stands alone in that regard! RIP Denice Denton Happy Holidays and don't drink too much eggnog. - F.A.A.F.A. 01:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What you would like to have included in the DU article is forbidden by policy ... You just don't get it. It doesn't appear in the DU article and I'm not trying to change that. All I'm saying is that it doesn't belong in the FR article either. DU is a reliable source about what happened to DU, and DU is saying that the Secret Service investigated DU for death threats against government officials.  Why am  I not surprised that you're defending Michell Malkin ... FAAFA, I would defend anyone's right, including yours, to be protected from the disclosure of personal information on a website that is seething with rage and loathing for her. Unfortunately for Mia Lawrence, the bankruptcy process requires the disclosure of personal info; and when it was carried to TheSmokingGun.com and then to Free Republic, it had already been disclosed and was in the public domain. -- BryanFromPalatine 01:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank you for your comments // Next steps 

message: ==Social organization and events==
There are local chapters within Free Republic which are organized through ping lists, e-mail, and Free Republic mail.
The more active chapters organize live protests, which they call "Freeps." Often these are counter protests, as responses to protests by groups whom they oppose. "Freepers," will assemble at a predetermined location with signs and banners which are generally designed and hand-drawn by individual members.
One such Freep was described by reporter by Kerry Lauerman for Salon.com  in 2001.  A number of Freepers paid $20 each to attend the conference at which conservative politicians and thinkers of varying pedigrees spoke to the issues that most interested the audience; the rights of man, the problems with the news media, and striper lakes.  The climax of the evening was the presentation of a large Confederate Flag, to "Bob Johnson, from Los Angeles, for spearheading the Free Republic Network."
in 2005, Free Republic helped organize and stage a  'Freep' in Washington D.C. intended to show support for the troops and in opposition to the September 24 2005 anti warprotest which drew an estimated 100,000.  Free Republic's D.C. chapter leader and frequent spokekperson for the group Kristinn Taylor was quoted as saying that they "were prepared  for 20,000 people to attend the pro-military rally, billed as a time to honor the troops fighting, the war on terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere around the world." Instead of the 20,000 expected, an estimated 100 reportedly did attend. [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1491040/posts]
Free Republic's counter-protest activities at Walter Reed Army Hospital are also notable. In 2005(? confirm date) the Antiwar group Code Pink initiated recurring protests outside the hospital, home to many soldiers severely injured in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The protests reportedly included mock caskets and signs which said "Maimed for Lies" and "Enlist here and die for Halliburton." sentiments offensive to many members of Free Republic. The D. C. Chapter, along with other groups, organized successful counter-protests, which allegedly resulted in Code Pink severely curtailing their Walter Reed protests, a clear victory for Free Republic and the other pro-war groups. 
(Also find and  include info on FR's letter writing and gift giving campaigns for the troops) Comments? - F.A.A.F.A. 21:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested addition(s) 

message: In January 2005, Free Republic hosted an inaugural ball at the Washington Plaza Hotel with the intention to celebrate the reelection of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, as well as honor our men and women serving in the Armed Forces.  The event featured Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and his rock and roll band, Capitol Offense.
--RWR8189 09:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Free Republic Inaugural Ball

message: I'm not sure how you term that as the last conensus version, as it is quite different from the last version Jossi posted.--RWR8189 07:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ben and fifi should be banned for being communizts. Rkba69 07:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! The ghost of Joe Mccarthy lives! Red-baiting is SO 1950's! - F.A.A.F.A. 08:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ben's reversion 

message: I just started articles on the real conservative altenitives to the soclizit free republic, and you socializts are trying to delete them. liberty forum, liberty post, ad original dissent.
that proves your soclists. socilaizts hate freedom of speech. like stalin
STOP IT —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rkba69 (talk • contribs) 07:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I knew nothing about your feud here but I nominated two of your articles for deletion because those sites appear completely non-notable.  Wikipedia is not censored, but it is also not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Dgies 07:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  stop it 

message: From what I can tell from the history, this revision was a neutral version prior to either 12ptHelvetica and ArlingtonTX's edits, which were apparently attempts at locking the article in some sort of agenda made note of at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Possible sockpuppetry and other issues.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From a cursory glance, I don't see a substantial difference between that version and the current protected version.--RWR8189 04:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not know this, but I do feel that ArlingtonTX's agenda needs some sort of mention. Trying to force an edit war to get their way for either article.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That version is mostly correct, but includes the inaccurate POV pro-Free Republic spin regarding L.A. Times vs Free Republic lawsuit, and the bogus $1M 'in attorney fees'  and Reuters claims. Please see my notes above. All 4 of FR's defenses were overuled, and 12pts mertitless assertion that they were not, was shown to be untrue. Would you please look at this link, and see if you think if the current pro FR spin accurately describes the court's total rejection of FR's legal defense? LAT v FR I thank you for interceeding, and am dissapointed that the unconscionable actions be certain disgruntled editors trying to evade WP policy have resulted in the article being locked, but their actions show that there was no other choice. I propose that the article remain locked indefinately with one or more admins approving each and every edit.  The behavior and actions of certain editors prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they can not be trusted to abide by the rules of Wikipedia - F.A.A.F.A. 04:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having the article "remain locked indefinitely" is not a method of dealing with this. This protection, and nearly all article protections, are not temporary measures. This article is an issue, and trying to push an agenda is a violation of WP:POINT and other such policies.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Trying to force an edit war to get their way My impression is that they were preparing for BenBurch and FAAFA to start an edit war - a <U>defensive</U> rather than an offensive strategy: Don't even try it DUmmies. We've been getting ready for you to start an edit war for a month - 209.221.240.193 17:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to revert to supposed "compromise" version 

message: WP:Voting_is_evil should be your first stopping point.  And if you seek to suppress well sourced criticism in this article, then I suggest you read WP:NOT.  You clearly are simply not understanding what this encyclopedia is at all.  Now, whether the ignorance is due to your newness in the project, [refactored] or willful flouting of the rules I will leave to those more psychic than I. --BenBurch 17:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seems that most of the sock puppets and meat puppets here do not understand consensus as applied to Wikipedia. 

message: ON 12/21, DP1976 edited the post of 12ptHelvetica adding content HERE - F.A.A.F.A. 03:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To dispel any such concerns, you can place a Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I see that you have already done so. Maybe it is better to let the process go through. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More Proof

message: DP1976 and BryanFromPalatine. It is  that 12ptHelvetica is the same. Dmcdevit·t 09:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sockpuppetry Findings 

message: With the departure of DP1976, there isn't a consensus in favor of making the changes FAAFA wants to make. I support removing the sentence in the lead that's based on Todd Brendan Fahey and the link to his article. The sentence that follows it is a repeat and should also be removed. Until we have a consensus on changes, I think Jossi and the admins should keep the lock on the page. It is my understanding that Bryan can still participate but if DP1976 shows up, then DP1976 and Bryan must be treated as one person. I remain open to any changes or suggestions Bryan offers to make. ArlingtonTX 23:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The page you archived included info important to the ongoing editing and discussion. Please let the mediator Jossi do the archiving.  Thanks - F.A.A.F.A. 00:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It would appear that you will no longer have to worry about this issue. --BenBurch 04:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Time to move on

message: In the Free Republic#Terminology and subculture section, please delink Zot!. The link provided is to a comic book, not an article on the term "zot!," and therefore needn't be linked. Picaroon 02:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good suggestion. Was it Batman? - F.A.A.F.A. 02:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it was not Batman. Picaroon 05:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I concur. --BenBurch 03:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Done. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Picaroon 05:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: User   was confirmed as both a sockpuppet and puppeteer of 
Findings
Note that  was suspected of also being a sockpuppet of the main puppeteer  BryanFromPalatine
EVIDENCE
 
At 17:49, on 9 December 2006 Puppeteer BryanFromPalatine was 3rr 24 HR blocked for excessive edits to Free Republic.
 
At 22:10 on 9 December 2006 user 12ptHelvetica was created. His first edit was to Free Republic agreeing with 208.250.137.2 who is in fact 12ptHelvetica as documented in the sockpuppetry findings.  His next post was a vote in a consensus agreeing with his puppeteer BryanFromPalatine and other members of the sock crew.  His next 4 edits were to Free Republic - all within the 24 hour block period of puppeteer BryanFromPalatine . Since these actions were so blatant and obvious, BenBurch warned him that he was a suspected sock puppet  of BryanFromPalatine within an hour of his first post. After being accused of sockpuppetry, 12ptHelevetica did not post for the next 48 hours.   90%+ of his posts have been to Free Republic.
 
At 22:32 on 10 December 2006 user DP1976, a confirmed sockpuppet of puppeteer BryanFromPalatine was created. His first post (other than creating his user page) was a vote in a consensus, of course agreeing with his  puppeteer BryanFromPalatine and other  members of BryanFromPalatine's sock crew. This was barely 24 hours after BryanFromPalatine was blocked for 3RR. Over 90% of DP1976's edits have been to Free Republic.
At 21:07 on 10 December 2006 user ArlingtonTX was created.This was barely 24 hours after BryanFromPalatine was blocked for 3RR.  His first post was responding to sockpuppetry charges by Ben Burch against puppeteer BryanFromPalatine. His second post was a vote in a consensus, agreeing with his  puppeteer BryanFromPalatine and other members of BryanFromPalatine's sock crew.   Every post of this user has been to Free Republic or to sock puppet cases related to his puppeteer BryanFromPalatine.
I am confident that an investigation will show that users ArlingtonTX and 12ptHelevetica are additional sockpuppets of the confirmed sockpuppeteer BryanFromPalatine who was shown to be the puppeteer of confirmed sockpuppet DP1976.
This blatant sockpuppetry mandates blocking of all the members of  BryanFromPalatine's sock puppet army, all the related IP's,  and especially puppeteer  BryanFromPalatine himself.
NEW INVESTIGATION - F.A.A.F.A. 02:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would appear that we have been joined by User:76.210.12.232 as another meatpuppet. --BenBurch 03:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More sockpuppetry documentation VITAL to this discussion 

message: Wikipedia:ANI#User:12ptHelvetica --BenBurch 03:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:12ptHelvetica]] Indefinitely Blocked 

message: I requested third party input on the lawsuit rewrite from editors involved with copyright issues on Wiki. Hopefully we'll get some. I was going to post an official RfC in "society, law and sex", but there weren't any law cases there, so I thought it better to post where I did. - F.A.A.F.A. 07:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Though, looking at the lawsuit from the standpoint of repressed sexuality would certainly be an original treatment...  ;-) --BenBurch 16:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested input on lawsuit rewrite 

message: Now that the issue is all resolved, is there any objection to archiving this whole bloated sock-puppet discussion?--RWR8189 07:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely! Only one of the suspected 5 sock puppet accounts has been blocked. Until the investigation is complete, which may take 10 days, all this info is needed. The entire talk page also discusses the specifics of the mediation, agreements, proposals, etc. It's needed as well.  Why do you appear to be 'siding' with the sock puppets by wanting to 'hide' their actions and the results of the official findings? - F.A.A.F.A. 07:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well excuse me FAAFA, my life doesn't revolve around your little sockpuppet thing, and I thought the whole thing was over.  And I don't think it would be possible to hide the investigation anyways, its been plastered everywhere.  Although you do appear to not be assuming good faith, that's for sure.--RWR8189 08:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do concur that he ought to apologize for that.  I don't see you siding with the sock puppets at least after you realized what they were. --BenBurch 16:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Describing a massive, WP violating sock puppet campaign to skew the POV of this article (to a POV which RWR happens to support) is not 'my little sockpuppet thing', it's a crtically important issue to everyone who cares about NPOV and Wiki's very integrity - and I consider that an insult. Please see 'time to move on' where I already stated my objections. By repeated the requests and goals of the 'Palatine Puppet Platoon' (my new neologism ;-) RWR was 'siding' with the socks. I hope it was unintentional. - F.A.A.F.A. 21:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has now been unprotected, I think the sockpuppet drama is over.  I think a summary on this talk page of the actions taken and a link to the appropriate sockpuppet discussion pages would more than suffice, and the rest can be archived.  However it seems we disagree about the importance of this sockpuppet thing in the course of human history.  I am only restating my original suggestion that this page not turn into the sockpuppet page, when we have all sorts of other avenues for it to be posted at.--RWR8189 01:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I object to archiving the discussion on the sock puppets. I just got back from holiday to find the article is gutted and under edit protection. I'm trying to catch up, to see what has been removed, when, and why.  My personal opinion is that, though some of the material could have been better written and some could have been better documented, any new entry will not be as informative as it was before.  I get the sense some people have been trying to finesse WP to censor information they don't like. The end result is a non-informative entry on the subject.  Before I am accused of bias, I think the same thing is going on with the DU entry, for the same reasons, just from the opposite political persuasion. Gregarious Lonewolf 21:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh no!  I thought DU had settled down.  --BenBurch 23:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving Sock Puppet Discussion 

message: WP:ANI#Discussion_on_blocks --BenBurch 16:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:DP1976]] Indefinitely blocked - [[User:BryanFromPalatine]] blocked one week (maybe longer) 

message: Now that all that is sorted out, may be it is a good time to resume editing. Hope that editors that have kept their editing privileges intact, engage now in making this article better. Happy editing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I suggested adding more of the 'good stuff' that FR does, like gifts and letters for the troops, but it appears that the FR supporters are more interested in deleting sourced criticism than adding positive material, so I guess I'll have to look for it and add it. - F.A.A.F.A. 10:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotected 

message: Can you?  Yes, it is a good description of the site from my experiences, but it also appears to be original research.  We cannot just be describing things here, we must be citing the descriptions of reliable sources.  I will strike the section by tomorrow if nobody can find a description that can be referenced in a reliable source. --BenBurch 04:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. And yes, of course it can always be put back if a source is found subsequently. --BenBurch 04:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I cannot find any RS for "Format and policy" 

message: There is a consensus against including the material based on Fahey. RWR8189 and I agree that it should not be included because Fahey doesn't satisfy the criteria of RS. Placing it in the lead of the article compounds the error. It should be removed immediately. This is not vandalism. This is consensus. ArlingtonTX 19:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoever keeps putting it in there has poor grammar skills. That doesn't help you. ArlingtonTX 19:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1)From your assertions I surmise that you don't understand consensus. I respectfully suggest that you read it. 2) Jossi is an Admin who is involved with rewriting policies including RS. He is an expert on WP. He felt it satisfied RS or wouldn't have left it in. 3) Please stop insulting your fellow editors 4) Have a happy new year, and please don't drink and drive. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 19:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus against the Fahey material

message: And that includes you all!  Don't drink & Drive! --BenBurch 03:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Happy New Year!