Talk:Chris Dorsey

This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed. If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

	This Conspiracy related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Content issues

You know, we usually don't go for uncritically supporting antisemitic conspiracy theories here.

Also don't copy and past content from other wikis.

Mostly the first thing though. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:04, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ikanreed Agreed, I would grudgingly advise letting it remain in Draftspace, but if it touches Mainspace in its current state I'll torch it without hesitation. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Truth be told, Dorsey is missional for precisely the reasons this... er... article is praising him. He's a conspiracy peddler with a large audience and a passion for racism. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ikanreed Hence my reasoning for not torching it here and now. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:27, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

The quotes our new friend has chosen to represent Dorsey positively seem downright insane, with only a couple exceptions. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 03:31, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Please provide reasonable evidence. For your arguments. Unlike you, Chris Dorsey's work is supported by evidence and based in the Law - the United States Constitution. Also, as evidence shows, he has been subjected to FBI investigation, which could not find him guilty of any wrongdoings. Words like 'insane' are ad hominame attacks and not based in reality. Chris Dorsey does not provide uncritical conspiracy theories but reality based facts, which Rational Wiki believes in also - such as for example that September 11 2001 was carried out by Israel.

Please, kindly provide evidence for your argument against my draft based on your guidelines and policies. My draft doesn't violate any of these Iha777 (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Possible plagiarism issues

This article appears to be copy-pasted from EverybodyWiki (last edited on 16 September 2018) which appears to be based on an idle Wikipedia draft. Cosmikdebris (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

And the Wikipedia draft was written by...Iha777. Even has the same username , so he's really plagiarising himself. Who's willing to bet he's actually Chris Dorsey trying to create a vanity page here because it didn't work anywhere else? --174.205.24.137 (talk) 16:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I am the author of the article on people's Wiki. I can provide evidence. On this basis this does not qualify as plagiarism because I am the author of the article Iha777 (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

While that page's history was wiped due to it being moved at one point, I see no reason to doubt your claim. I do, however, have to wonder why you would need to repost it in so many different places. --Logos (talk) 17:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@Logos Because it's fringe shit that most people don't give a damn about, and our friend here wants them to. Same as this guy here. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, I hope he appreciates my improvements to the page. It looks more like a real RationalWiki article already, though the number of people called "Chris Dorsey" who aren't on the lunatic fringe has stymied my attempts to find out more about him from third party sources.--Logos (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Dorsey and the law.

Judging from the content that the original editor added, as well as one of the current sources, it seems that Dorsey may subscribe to the Sovereign citizen/Freeman on the land strain of libertarian wingnuttery. If we could get a few more sources to back up that hunch on my part (or to disprove it) that would be great. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

His own site makes it sound like he's not directly associated with them; if he was I'd expect him to share more of the sovereign citizen characteristics, like tax evasion and the obsession with admiralty law. From the few sources on him I could find that aren't coming from him directly, he's just a garden variety libertarian wingnut who doesn't seem to realize that the constitution isn't "enforced" like ordinary laws. (I also noticed on the source I just added that he thought it was a good idea to post his email address and phone number on a public website. That's not going to bite him in the ass at all, nosiree.)--Logos (talk) 02:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)