Talk:Rapid Relief Team

Vandalism

@ThirdHorizon your edits of well-sourced, neutral content appear to be vandalistic - for instance removing relevant content backed by ABC news, and marketing the remaining text unsourced. If you are associated with the topic of this article, please refrain from editing. BMSKiwi (talk) 13:35, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I would add that all my edits are well-sourced, which yours are notably not. BMSKiwi (talk) 13:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

@BMSKiwi i have also messaged you on your personal page. Warning. You are now edit warring. The removal of the ABC news was not because it was unreliable, but because it was not about the RRT. it was about the PBCC so should go on their page not the RRT.

None of what I wrote was 'inappropriate/vandalistic'. And to accuse me of being bias is not acceptable. I am a reliable wiki editor contributing to articles on many subjects. We can all see what your only edit history is on the PBCC and the Rapid Relief team. Which suggest very highly that you are either bias or a paid editor. Both not acceptable by wikis rules.

You are now approaching behaviour that is blockable. So you need to take a step back, read how wiki works and contribute in other ways rather than just rolling back edits that are made to ensure wiki is reliable and neutral.

Thank you

ThirdHorizon (talk)

@BMSKiwi You should read WP:3RR as you are likely to be blocked from editing if you continue.

WP:3RR WP:3RR

Any neutral editor wills see that you are editing in bad faith, removing valid sources. For example, "The removal of the ABC news was not because it was unreliable, but because it was not about the RRT. it was about the PBCC so should go on their page not the RRT." this show you have not read the source, which is entirely and solely about RRT - read it https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11-20/plymouth-brethren-christian-church-sa-health-adelaide/104613902

The only reason for such malicious editing is bad-faith or conflict of interest. Feel free to escalate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BMSKiwi (talk • contribs) 13:53, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Furthermore in reply to this " We can all see what your only edit history is on the PBCC and the Rapid Relief team." - this relates to my field of expertise. It is unclear to me why many edits about islands in the Hauraki Gulf would allow one to become an expert on an obscure religious charity. BMSKiwi (talk) 13:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

@ThirdHorizon all of your edit are about removing valid sources and trying to paint an artificially positive view or RRT, which the sources cannot support. For example, the statement that RRT has faced criticism was backed by a recent YouTube postcast on this topic, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUIXSs8UGeY - you have removed this and deceptively marked the text [by whom?] and [citationneeded].

@BMSKiwiYes - an youtube video of a podcast. You might want to look up about wiki's requirement for reliable sources. Because that certainly isn't going to pass. ThirdHorizon (talk)

Furthermore all of your commentary about edit warring and reversions is directly applicable to yourself. Your original article was independently marked "promotional" by another editor, until I improved it and added independent sources (rather than links to the RRT website of which your edits heavily rely), for which the editor thanked me.

You have now undone almost all of those edit to restore the promotional tone and content. Please don't tell me I am guilty of edit warring, after these edits. BMSKiwi (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

@ThirdHorizon it is generally considered a good thing to have expertise on the subject of one's edits. To suggest otherwise would be like suggesting you should not edit articles on Hauraki gulf islands, because you have a "classic conflict of interest".

Likewise, the validity of a source depends on the claim it is being used to support. In this case, the claim is that RRT has been the subject of criticism (not whether that criticism is valid). A two-hour long podcast is the exact type of source required for such a statement. Removing a source in this context is the definition of bad faith/vandalism.

"But you definately sound like a disgruntled member or ex member with an agenda to push" this statement is also in breach of Wikipedia rules. Talk page guidelines: Behavior that is unacceptable: Do not make ad hominem attacks, such as calling someone an idiot or a fascist." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines BMSKiwi (talk) 14:19, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

@BMSKiwi In your own words your 'field of expertise' is 'an obscure religious' group. Sounds like a classic conflict of interest to me. Looking at your edits i certainly could claim you're running a PBCC fan page (also banned on wiki). But you definately sound like a disgruntled member or ex member with an agenda to pushThirdHorizon (talk)

If you're so sure that you are right on this. Back off the reverting and let it play out with other editors on wiki.

The amount you keep reverting is a lot more than just one link. There was a lot of non-neutral content, unsourced and unreliable sources. If you only had a problem with the one link, then why are you doing a full revert each time. Why not just edit that section like a proper wiki editor would? ThirdHorizon (talk)

Daily Mail as a source

Just a note to back up my tag on the source (because I'm sure I will likely be accused of some Bias). The Daily Mail was put on wiki's unreliable source list. It has had hundreds of discussions and RfC's etc. See WP:DAILYMAIL or if you want some interesting reading: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_220#Daily_Mail_RfC ThirdHorizon (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I have no objection to the assertion that the Daily Mail is a generally unreliable source, and for the sake of collegiality will accept it being tagged as such here.

However I would make the following three points:

Firstly, the strength of any source depends on the statements it is being used to support. Even an overt propaganda outlet could be a useful source for an article about, say, propaganda techniques. It could be argued that using weak sources to support derivative points constitutes 'original research', but to that I would reply that for some obscure topics, high-quality independent sources may be rare or non-existent, and it is better to use weaker sources than none at all (or to accept misleading or promotional articles).

Secondly, in this case the weakness of the source is already encapsulated in the wording of the article, which reads "financial records reportedly showed nearly half of the funds raised were used for internal expenses" (my emphasis). This statement takes no position on the truth of the allegations, but simply says that they were reported, which is clearly true. A reader wishing to learn more can simply follow the link and evaluate the source themselves.

Thirdly, despite the Daily Mail's quality issues, it is still a publication with assets located in a jurisdiction with strong defamation laws. The article was published over six years ago and remains live today. is unlikely that RRT would have allowed such allegations to remain published for so long, unless they had a solid basis in fact.

Hope that clarifies my position. BMSKiwi (talk) 01:07, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Why was the well sourced 'criticisms' section trimmed so heavily?

I do not want to cast aspersions of possible attempted whitewashing on a public facing website, but I can't help but think that's the case. Hooples (talk) 22:09, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

@Hooples: theres something called the talk page history which tells you when different edits were ade and by whom, it even has edit summaries where editors provide summaries which would generally answer questions such as this one. you can access it by clicking "view history" up in the wikibar or in the case of this specific article by clicking . If you have any other questions after reviewing that please feel free to ping me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:27, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I have reviewed all the edits and everything as you suggested, and honestly it leaves me confused. I just found this after reading around from my notifications from a few months ago and I find this topic interesting as it's so far from what I deal with. I hope this article and the related church's article can remain free from (what seems like several kinds of over the months) bias. Cheers to you :) Hooples (talk) 00:05, 20 September 2025 (UTC)