Template talk:Bullying/Archive 1

388:

themselves are the victim and the victim is the culprit. This in turn ties up very well with the concept of blame-shifting, victim playing and scapegoating. Psychological projection is also strongly associated with personality disorders, narcissism and psychopathy. Another motivation for bullying is narcissistic envy, think for examples of serious cases of school bullying where for example a schoolgirl killed herself because she was seriously bullied for being "too pretty". Also it is common for unusually academically bright children to get bullied as they are branded the "school swot" for example. I have run a support group for bullied victims for the last 6 years and these themes are frequently brought up. It is well documented that the psychological damage from abuse or bullying often is loss of self-esteem, complex post-traumatic stress disorder and psychological trauma. Rankism is relevant because bullying often involves somebody abusing their position of authority and exploiting somebody's vulnerability. Sycophancy relates to others that support (and suck up to) the bully and bully on his behalf as frequently bullying is vicarious - the chief bully (maybe the one with a personality disorder) typically employs a team of sycophants who do his dirty work for him. Without this the chief bully on his own would not be very effective. Emotional blackmail is a form of intimidation associated with psychological manipulation and bullying. Victimisation is an important concept in bullying just as much as abuse. Personal boundaries is an important concept because bullies like to continually chip away at the victim's personal boundaries so they may become helpless victims - this in turn ties in with narcissism, victimisation, self-esteem and assertiveness etc.--

4015:, I dispute your background statement "And that sparked this whole discussion above and the RFC as well." I was not influenced by banned users to highlight the problems and to call for discussion across the different problematic templates, and in fact I think your summary of the RFC was non-neutral and brought in topics that that the RFC was not about. Anyone who suggests I am a banned user or am acting for a banned user should substantiate the allegations or drop them. I've asked you before what you think my actions have to do with the banned users you mention and have not had a response. If you're annoyed that a lot of material has been removed from the templates, then clearly you're against consensus, looking at the RFC. I think it's unhelpful that, in the RFC and other discussions about these templates, you've spent so much effort talking about the non-issue of long-banned editors in preference to the matter at hand. 2075:). I've personally been hospitalized many times for depression and suicide attempts. That being said and perhaps offered more information than was needed, other than I wanted to make the next point clearer, I am willing to work on these articles as I perhaps have more insight into what these people that succeeded in their might have been thinking or going through at the time as well as being slightly more aware of most of where I might find reliable sources of information I can cite to improve those articles. Bottom line, in my eyes, they have a valid reason for being there. 3738:

on a topic. 3) Just because some articles are not currently all that great is not grounds for exclusion from a navbox if the TOPIC is relevant- it's an argument to improve the articles! 4) The navbox isn't a random link farm; however, it should be as comprehensive as necessary. So, my inclination is to lean toward more, not less, and I don't think the existing navbox is too big. What would help here is a better summation of the 5-6 SPECIFIC articles that appear to be in contention for addition or removal.

31: 928:

topic, and which does not have its own article then my argument is that such a section should be added to the template. It is possible that we reach an impasse, you and I, on this element. We truly need other eyes. I have noticed that there is some friction between you and Penbat. I am not interested in the history of that, but their opinion is as important to me as yours, and other editors have thoughts, too. We could probably do with some section headings in this discussion, too.

1090:. In a template approaching a gross of entries, why this? The material linked to is hardly enlightening and certainly not of principle or even secondary significance to the topic. The same kind of careful consideration ought to be given to every single entry. In other cases, the template is overloaded by unnecessary linking. There are something like 10 links to either articles or subarticles on bullying in the workplace. Simply sending the reader to 2090:

task of writing an encyclopedia - that instead there are motivations to have these series of articles and links and templates be about victim advocacy. Victim advocacy isn't a bad thing - it's a good thing - but it is something for an advocacy website, not an encyclopedia. Now, if reliable sources link all these topics to the subject of bulling, that is worth discussing. Frankly, most of the articles as written and as sourced do

3514:

is the most closely related topics. In this case, the "Types" field. The addition of all these tangental links detracts from the template's function as a navigational aid. Even now there remain completely irrelevant links ("moving the goalposts") and numerous links that add very little navigational value. Most all of this is better served in a list article detailing potential effects of bullying.

456:, keeps removing this item from the template. That removal s done repeatedly and without consensus. Such repeated actions make it very difficult to assume good faith. I and others have attempted discussions with this editor, to no avail. I am now issuing vandal warnings, having warned the editor that this would happen, each time the removal is made, and am reverting the removal as vandalism. 3770:

counted, particularly if looking at forms that bullying might take. Now, I agree that duplications or articles that are pretty much circular need to be trimmed, and maybe shouting is a bit of a stretch, but clearly, teasing, taunting, school pranks, practical joking ... all of these things ARE used as tools by bullies. May I suggest collapsible subsections as I did when I created

702:, you don't list every...in fact, you don't list any...subtopic on that page. Another problem is that many of the articles linked to are themselves nothing more than disambiguation pages without any substantive content. Anyway, this is a discussion that has to be had and good on you for getting it started. It is a vast improvement over the way this has been handled heretofore. 2547:)'s hounding and I participated little only to later find that Fladrif was being disruptive elsewhere in addition to the issues with Penbat (and was indefinitely blocked for chronic disruption and personal attacks in April). In any case though, I think we should start a new discussion about what we should do as I did not participate in the recent edit war in March. As 104:

doubting that there is an overlap, but there is no direct, notable relationship. It may be worth nothing somewhere in the main bullying article that some bullying is a result of psychopathy and to mention in the main psychopathy article that some psychopaths turn to bullying. However, the relationship is not close enough to warrant a mention on the template

4034:

expressed above. As for whether an article is relevant to the template topic, I don't think we need an expert. If the article itself mentions the topic, in way that hasn't obviously been shoe-horned or coat-racked in, then it's likely relevant. That criterion itself fails a lot of links that were included in this template when the concerns were raised.

680:

template,and that limit is not to be exceeded without clear consensus. I see no attempt to reach consensus on this (or frankly on a number of category templates closely related to this one) to exceed that limit or for what a reasonable limit for this category would be. That needs to be addressed. Second, policy requires that

3589:. Arguing the existence of some sort of relationship between topics is not going to convince me that every article that fits a broad category of possibilities is appropriate. In a list article, yes. In a navbox, no. C'est la vie though. We'll see how everything shakes out when others have had a chance to participate. 3567: 3569: 2998:-I just glanced at Fladrifs diffs in the history section. There are many deletions and I'm not sure this RfC is going to work in its current set up because its so undefined and covers so much ground but...... From what I've seen...... all of the listings Fladrif deleted could be placed back in the template 3794:) and Star767 (a banned user of Zeraeph) became involved back in March. And that sparked this whole discussion above and the RFC as well. I had no interest in getting involved in the discussion other than asking others around at first right up until after Fladrif was blocked and I saw what happened at 3875:

It's always a good time to involve others. So far very few folk seem to care enough either way, so a larger group of folk giving the template some thought would be excellent. But attracting people has been tried before. Perhaps it needs a radically different approach and to be nominated for deletion?

3852:

I was only giving some background information on some events as well, but I did not want to personally participate in the discussions right up until May or so. At this point, I think we still need a new broader consensus from more users on those issues. So far, from the discussions I have seen, there

3364:

which seem to be contentious, all articles are relevant to bullying in some way. In some cases references to bullying are actually made in the article. In others the connection is quite apparent if you Google relevant reliable sources its just that the Knowledge articles need some work to develop the

3156:

While the concept of such a discussion is good, such things tend to wither on the vine of lack of enthusiasm. I'm happy to contribute to it if this is the route we choose, but I don't intend to commit to the entire process. Since I believe that others are like me I suspect that, while this appears to

2661:

the above discussion took place. I think that at this point, it's time that we should request that previously uninvolved users from the Psychology project to get involved and discuss ideas as well if there are no further objections. If there is consensus to readd the links, it will be readded. But if

1132:

appear to be linked to on the most tenuous of pretexts. Some bullies have sycophants or are themselves sycophants to bigger bullies? Some bullies and bullied people get depressed? Some whistleblowers get bullied? It is not a service to the reader to have 135 links in a template like this when a large

1060:

It is sometimes important to determine the shape of the table. I understand your exhortation to find the chapters and verses. I find, in general, that this is the last stage of a discussion. Firing the big gun of "This policy says so, thus it must be correct" tends to alienate other protagonists, and

896:

I need a break, and will consider your point. I may not answer today. Before you edit too widely do remember that we are but two voices. I would hate just the two of us to make a consensus here. I will not revert an edit removing external items, but I do feel either a true policy must be invoked or a

84:

That is completely untrue. Bullying is often treated as a mysterious social phenomina that somehow appeared one day from outerspace. But if you delve deeper into the underlying psychology you will discover that the mechanics of bullying are very well explained by various psychological phenomena, some

4068:

I don't really think it was forum shopping. But I think there was actually a weak consensus on this issue among Psychology members among some editors and this discussion was going on for too long. That's why I decided to take an RFC here, but in the end it's just a total mess. My summary was clearly

3913:

I'm unwatching-- please ping me when you nominate it for deletion. It is patently absurd that we are exposing our readers and our browsers to a template this gynormous. This discussion has been going on for almost a month, and even halfway moves to get it down to something reasonable are opposed.

3789:

Indeed. However, I'm still quite pissed off that there was disruption going on between Penbat, Fladrif and Star767 during the events of March-April 2013 and a lot of the stuff here was removed. This only became an issue when Fladrif (a chronically disruptive user who not only had issues with Penbat,

3754:

don't discuss bullying in any context whatsoever - and that is not a fault of the article. The topic of "bullying" simply isn't relevant to the concept. Teasing, school pranks, sarcasm, rudeness, moving the goalposts, gossip... "Bystanders" is just a duplicate link to the bullying article itself.

2424:

Also, I hate to say this but Fladrif was constantly wikihounding Penbat, the main author of the template, on several articles relating to bullying and abuse (including this particular template as well) at that time according to that ANI thread and according to Penbat, he seemed to align himself with

2310:

article the statement that he was frequently bullied, and then added to the infobox that it was a motive for the crime, and added it to the various bullying articles and templates. The same editor added the infobox and templates at the crime article as well, but no text. The source for the statement

2089:

With all due respect to both of your experiences, the standard here isn't personal experience and conviction. It is whether the connection of the article to the subject-matter of the template is reliably sourced. I have the sense that there are motivations at work here that are inconsistent with the

1453:

section on bullying needs to be added . I've seen way too many notes already (not from you) at way too many articles exactly like that - notes that have sat there for two, three or more years, with no sourced text forthcoming. Until the article says something sourced and relevant to the Template, it

132:

and it doesnt bother me particularly if it is taken out. But the point is that profanity on its own doesnt in itself constitute bullying, but it is if it is used in conjunction with other bullying elements. Similar with rudeness, rudeness on its own is not bullying but it may typically be part of a

4049:

And part of the result of missing the discussion is that I've missed that there was an RFC on this page in addition to the RFC on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Psychology about this template, so my references to "the RFC" don't match up with what other contributors are referring to. Not sure why there

3945:

My first question here is, who decides what relevance to the topic of bullying each of these has? Do we try to recruit an expert on the subject? Do we have a straw poll? Who contributes to the straw poll? Do we have a mini-RfC for each? Where is the line drawn? I'm not saying that I object, I

3892:

I think a radically different approach is acceptable at least. At this point, very few people seem to care about this, but we need a larger group of people to attain consensus. Unless someone objects, I am going to nominate the template for deletion in the next couple of days per Tim's suggestions.

3749:

Lets leave the internal Knowledge political rhetoric out of this, shall we? At any rate, my contention is virtually the entire "Elements" section. Some have obvious links and belong. Most have tenuous links, and while they would be useful to mention in a list article, the majority have so little

3737:

I was asked to be one of these "others around" and comment. Some preliminary thoughts: 1) I agree that bullying in general is not as well-coverd on WP as it could be (perhaps because there is so much bullying ON WP?) 2) A navbox should be helpful to allow people to easily find related articles

3679:

This leaves only category #2. above as still unresolved. Considering the fact that these templates are supposed to serve as brief navigational aides and not as lengthy lists, I would propose that we generally adopt a policy here that in cases of ambiguity and non-consensus, we should generally try

3552:

that section in Moving the Goalposts basically says "this can be an example of bullying because it is". Putting that poor writing aside, it does not change the point that bullying has only a very small relationship with the concept as a whole. It could certainly be included in a list article that

3513:

The issue I have always had is that this is being treated as a list. It is not, it is a navigational template. It should not list every little thing that has some small tie in to the article subject. IMNSHO, a navbox should be limited to where the reader is most likely to want to go next, and that

3290:

Even SandyGeorgia's version is too long. Try to cut it down to under 2000 bytes to reduce the impact on users with non-Western, non-fast internet connections. These types of templates are a major factor in reducing the accessibility and usability of the project: they make the article harder to open

2882:

to the question asked above. What I support is consensus, even if it goes against my views. I am unconcerned about the fact of the blocked editor's being blocked. IN geenral the rushing to revert a blocked editor's edits can work against any consensus that obtained prior to the block. If there is a

2640:

I think it a good idea to return to the discussion. Despite the hounding-of-Penbat that user seems to have managed a decent discussion with me and other above. I am content with the alterations that have had consensus. I influenced that consensus and helped to form it. WIth regard to collapsing the

2127:

me! Okay... Let's start with those two. People who are bullied are afraid. They react to a perception of the danger of something that might be said about them or done to them, when quite often those are self-fulfilling prophecies. This means that anxiety is associated with bullying, and perhaps the

927:

is that those sections, while valid, have (at least for the present) insufficient information to warrant full articles. Where there is a full article that article is linked to directly. That is what makes the subtopics somehow 'special'. If you find one that is not linked, which is a valid bullying

720:

I am quite content if every entry in the template is discussed, though appreciate that this would take an unusually long time. I'd like to set aside your thoughts that the template itself might be unwieldy with a large number of links. I suspect that there is no technical server issue with that and

3407: 3405: 2570:

Given this template is still a giant, bloated joke, if you wish to start a new discussion, I would suggest pointing to the specific links that you feel warrant re-inclusion and try to build a consensus. Frankly, I think it still needs to be cut further. There are far too many links that are only

2228:

It has been just you and I discussing this for the last week, and I've reverted your most recent change because there was no consensus all of those should be removed. Tim simply stated ones that should at least be kept, he did not say which ones should be gotten rid of or which ones he is neutral

1192:

We also need some discipline on this talk page. Rather than my commenting on the two or more examples added recently above, may I request a subheading, please, and the discussion to be held in that subheading. My rationale is that, while we are unimportant, the decisions we make need to be tracked

146:

Regarding psychopaths, nobody is saying that all psychopaths are bullies and vice versa but there is plenty of authoritative literature, such as "Snakes in Suits" demonstrating that there is quite a strong link between the two. I suspect you have preconceived ideas of what a psychopath is - like a

4108:

successive RFCs (plus the consensus of past discussion before the RFCs). I'd like discussion towards this end not to be persistently derailed by reference to the long-banned users. It's ironic that you say this is not important when you've spent so much time and effort on it, and you've described

3830:

On the basis that reaching any conclusion and consensus on this is unlikely, why not use the current version of the template (however it stands now) as the datum, and see who shouts when an addition or removal is made, using that to reach future consensus? My life is not long enough to spend much

3565:

No it says more than that. Anyway that isn't the point. As Ive tried to explain, the coverage of bullying on Knowledge is quite poor. There are tons of sources you can find from Google that could help amplify the relationships between bullying and related concepts but the work remains to be done.

2598:

Definitely cut further rather than re-add links. Resolute and Technical 13 are right on that point. Also, though wikihounding sounds horrible, and I can understand withdrawing from the discussion, I'm still not understanding why Penbat edited against consensus. I'm hoping we'll hear directly from

2108:

Let's start with some easy ones: Anxiety and Psychopathy. Neither article has any text linking them to bullying. Anxiety is specifically distinguished from Fear; the former being a reaction to perception of danger, as opposed to a reaction to actual danger. Psychopathy has no apparent connection

2070:

I also disagree that this group should be deleted. While some of the articles linked to may need some TLC, I think the topics of some of them may be fundamentally related to bullying. Having been a victim of bullying growing up in school (I was an 85# 5'8" tall boy in 5th grade that was an only

2037:

From this current list: Abuse Anger Anxiety Control freak Complex post-traumatic stress disorder Dehumanization Emotional blackmail Just-world hypothesis Narcissism Personal boundaries Personality disorders Power Psychological manipulation Psychological projection Psychological trauma Psychopathy

1650:

In terms of formatting I like the layout with the title of the section on the left, and dislike centralised headings. I do not object to an "all collapsed or all expanded" approach. Whether that is compatible with a collapsing box or not I cannot remember. I did some navbox with collapsing things

387:

What you probably fail to understand is that bullying is just a subset of abuse and that the psychological phenomina that apply to abuse also apply to bullying. Psychological projection is a key psychological phenomina that often motivates someone to bully (or abuse) and typically claim that they

224:

CAN be present in a bully, but as i said earlier about psychopathy, a mental condition that can increase the chance of someone being a bully slightly doesn't qualify. People with certain kinds of autism of schizophrenia may also have increased chances of becoming a bully but aren't mentioned, as

3234:

I may be speaking out of turn here but for my two cents the problem is the word "related." Perhaps finding some more specific but still appropriate descriptors would help? Like personality/psychological aspects. It might also make sense to treat each entry individually rather than as a group. So

1962:

I agree with that approach. Few, if any of the score of "related topics" articles are even plausibly categorized as Bullying, and it is a disservice to readers to have this kind of bloat in a template. I've been taking these a few at a time for purposes of this discussion, but nearly all of them

1615:

The overall structure of the template you've put together looks good. I confess that I'm surprised that, even compressed, it's as big as it is. As we go through this stuff, we can discuss whether all of the subheadings are necessary, or if any of them can be combined, or - going the other way -

1188:

Sectional linking. provided it is to sections that do not have their own articles, is, I think, an emerging consensus here, based upon rationale, not upon weight of numbers. I believe we need to consider the components linked to. But what we should not do is to flit form area to area. If this is

881:

This is a good start. I imagine that this will take some time. I'll make the change we agreed upon, and we'll continue this discussion later. Consider this in the meantime on your second point: You must agree that it would be improper to link to every single one of the dozens of subtopics in the

738:

At that point we have the good basis for a discussion. At present, though I have not studied every item in detail, I see what is a broadly useful, albeit large, template. With good arguments you can convince me and others of any slimming down. At present my thoughts are that slimming down is not

4135:

I think you do know what it means, you know. The hurly burly of Knowledge means that aspects which do not meet policy will, now or later, be made compliant by someone, maybe by you. I don't care about long banned users, not about yet to be banned users, nor about unbanned users. I do care about

1933:

The question that should always be asked when constructing a navbox is: "does this aid navigation?" Tangential links, almost as a rule, do not. Certainly we would want to mention in articles about bullying about how depression and the like can result from bullying, but that does not make it a

3769:

I think that is precisely the point, though: what is relevant to bullying? The Elements section is very much key to the whole concept (though if someone wanted to move it loser in the template navbox, I wouldn't object.) The linked articles don't have to say "this is a form of bullying" to be

2150:

That is not an reliably-sourced, evidence-based argument, but a mere statement of personal preference. Coatracking yet another article is a non-starter. This argument is, with all due respect, directly contrary to the applicable standards for deciding what to include, and what to exclude, from

753:

That is a reasonable way to proceed, but I would note that in any discussion such as this, the burden is on the editors advocating inclusion of an item to justify it, not the other way around. As a practical matter, that distinction rarely of consequence, but I suspect it may be an issue here.

4033:

that the templates need to follow. We seemed to have consensus there that at least some of the templates were overreaching and need to be cut down. When we have policy and consensus to cut down, and some editors are still opposing cutting down, then I can understand SandyGeorgia's frustration

2824:

about this, this is what he said about this matter: "I'm quite pissed off that quite a lot of stuff has been removed from the template and ideally i would want it returned to its original state (before Fladriff got involved) and certainly no more taken out. It only got raised as an issue when

103:

I understand your point, but one such article was 'profanity' which although it can pop up in some bullying cases, it's not interrelated in any way. Another case was psychopathy; while it may be present in some cases, not al bullies are psychopaths and not all psychopaths are bullies, i'm not

2533:), one of the main contributors, was constantly Wikihounded by Fladrif back in March, leaving him unable to do any significant editing on the template as well as articles related to abuse and bullying. A discussion has already taken place above and Penbat did not participate in it because of 1697:

I suggested that the Template only link to articles, not to subsections, Fiddle Faddlel and Technical 13 disagree. No one else has commented. In addition, there appears to be agreement that a considered decision be made as to what subsections of articles should be linked to. The subsections

679:

I can get into more detail in the next couple of days, but here are a couple of observations. There are 135 links in this template, which is vastly beyond all reason and convention. I can't find the link right now, but there is a limit on the number of links that are to be put in a category

2199:

article in the template. But we should not, and do not need to, put every link that could conceivably have any connection, no matter how small, to the overall topic. This navbox should link only articles that are focused on the topic of bullying. The tangental links, such as anxiety and

1421:

I would say that is a deficiency of the article, not of the template. I have worked in a culture of bullying and fear. It was unpleasant. I suggest a note on the target article's talk page that it is deficient would be appropriate, together with an expansion of it in at least a section?

173:

I understand that not all psychopaths are like the ones in films. I would appreciate it if you didn't treat me as if i was ignorant. I've removed 'profanity' seeing as there's no dispute there but as for the 'related' articles, i'll make a list of them, explaining my opinion of each one

3478: 958:. On studying that one I think the problem is in the Betrayal article. The explicit main article link is probably not required in it. I think over-enthusiastic work in the Betrayal article is the issue with that one and the template should stay as it stands for that odd seeming link. 3466: 1189:

worth doing it is worth doing with rationale. If it takes a while then it takes a while. It's important, yes, but it is not urgent. Readers of Knowledge expect a certain standard, but it is not very high. We need to exceed that standard wherever we can, but not as an emergency.

2613:

It seems like pretty good reasons have been set out in the discussion above for cutting down a lot of the template. Of course consensus can change, but that means new arguments have to be presented. It's not a reason to stop the changes for which there is existing consensus.

3440: 688:

It is far from clear why the links I just removed, and why many of the other links that haven't been touched, bear any rational relation to the template, and there is nothing in the linked articles themselves that have anything to do with the topic. One example among many:

693:

is not a personal attack, and it isn't bullying. It an informal fallacy in logic and rhetoric. This list appears to be assembled from mere whim. Third, many of the links are merely duplicitive of other links. Four of the links, for example, are simply subtopics in the

3449:- bullying is not explicitly mentioned in this article but it easily could be. Bullying is self evidently the bully expanding their own personal boundaries and violating the personal boundaries of the victim. This idea is mentioned in the article in terms of narcissism 784:

to be irrelevant and simply reach a consensus in the best way available. What we have at present is a list which can be worked from. It is far easier to work from it than to determine afresh what ought to be included. Ignoring precedent, pragmatism should win the day.

569:

Is it valid to include links to Knowledge's own policies with regard to bullying (etc) in this template? I would like to suggest it be done on the basis that people's interest in that area may well be aroused by reading any article on the core topics addressed here.

2825:

Fladriff & sock-puppet Star767 piled in. Anyway these days i have WikiBurnout and am trying to do as little as possible on Wiki. I don't have the stomach to get involved in Template talk:Bullying." I hope this understands why he does not wish to get involved.

1215:

I've extracted these from the discussion above. I may have made errors in placing them. If so my apologies. Each requires discussion as far as I can see from the material above. I am placing them here without making a comment about their inclusion or otherwise.

1541:

I believe that Fiddle Faddle and Fladrif are in agreement that this Template should only link to things that are on en.wikipedia, and not to things outside that domain. No one else has commented. Links to Wiktionary entries have been removed from the template.

1406:

I would have thought so based on the title, but the actual text is strictly limited to the creating or exploiting fear in the masses to obtain political ends, and doesn't really have anything to do with the interpersonal in general or bullying in particular.

326:

Jesus give me a break. I have already spent a significant amount of time answering your earlier points. I can easily justify the inclusion of the articles as they are but i would effectively have to write a long essay just for your benefit to explain it to

147:

Hollywood axe murderer maybe, but the definition of a psychopath is broader than you probably realise. Often the chief bully (like a gang leader) may be psychopathic but there may be an army of non-psychopathic bullies who may do his dirty work for him. --

2275:

article and sources, and they say absolutely nothing about bullying. In fact, the source cited for the statement in the article that he was frequently bullied says exactly the opposite - nobody bullied him because he was himself physically intimidating.

1756:

A number of links appear to be merely repetitive. I have suggested removal of repetitive links. There are 10 links on the subject of Workplace bullying. "Control" and "control freak" link to the same article. No one else has commented specifically.

4168:

Since the RFC has been closed, I would like to make a proposal here on which links to keep or leave out. If someone objects, I am going to start a proposal for the categories that were removed back in April. Comments or objections before I proceed?

1735:

I would suggest that the only one of these that I would consider sufficiently important to include in this Template is possibly parental bullying. I can be persuaded about prison bullying. Bystanders and betrayal strike me as obvious candidates for

1153:

Hello. I am watchlisting this discussion, but have never edited the template before. I also support the use of sectional linking and collapsing in the template per the above reasonings by Timtrent and Technical 13. Also, I have asked members of the

1444:

article - the "culture of bullying and fear" you describe in your former workplace is a completely different thing, outside of the scope of the article. But, I would reserve final judgment until actually seeing proposed, sourced text. What should

3798:(Fladrif was being disruptive there as well). I find his conduct a major distraction. Anyway, I do agree that we should remove duplicate articles or articles that are pretty much circular. As for the collapsible subsections, I can live with that. 2071:

child of a severely torn family structure where the parents used me as a weapon against each other which destroyed any possibility of me having any self esteem not to mention I was the geeky "computer kid" that fixed all of the schools computers

982:

After reading this long discussion, of which most of it seems to be an attempt to establish a set of rules for the discussion instead of discussing the topic of the discussion, I'd like to offer a couple points and thoughts that I have about it.

2448:

No discussion has taken place over the past couple of months and the last edit on this discussion was made more than a month ago. Fladrif has been blocked indefinitely months back as explained above. May we close this discussion? Votes below:

1766:

I would either (i) remove all the links to bullying in various work settings in favor of a single link or (ii) collapse them all into a collapsible subheading on workplace bullying. I would remove "Control", which simply redirects to "control

2902:-- It would be helpful to me and other editors who may join this RfC if we could have before and after diffs and/or a list of the links that the RfC presenter would like replaced, so it is clear what we are making a judgement about. Thanks-- 1310:

every time, in the end that abuse is sufficient to get through even the toughest defence. It may appear mild to an outsider, but to a sufferer it becomes enormous. If two people join together to call you the same name, that personal abuse is

862:

I have no difficulty with not linking to anything that is not on en Knowledge itself. I had not realised there were externalised links. I'm pretty sure our templates are intended to remain internal. There may even be a policy to state that

2583:

I would like to see the articles be worked on that are being linked to. Furthermore, I think there (sh|c)ould be some more cutting... Split the "suicide of foo" into its own navbox for starters or at very least collapse the sections...

4077:

at a much later time, but in the meantime, I think that everyone should let this template and the other templates pertaining to psychology take their chances in due course. Until then, let's all move on to something that's actually

3675:

I would propose that it also makes sense that any items that qualify for item B., should be kept out of the template, at least until the proposed target article could be improved enough to bring such articles up to the A. category.

931:

I am interested in a good consensus to ensure we have a good template. I am interested off Knowledge in the prevention of bullying (and shoudl declare that here), but that is just an interest as far as this discussion is concerned.

997:

provided they are not covered by something on this wiki at this time and there can be no dispute that the content is something of enough importance that it should be included until a time when such an article can be created on

2877:

I am content to discuss this again to determine a new consensus, even if the discussion is laborious. I agree with some and disagreed with other parts of the blocked user's position. Because I am in this position I must stat

1571:

I believe that Fiddle Faddle, Fladrif and Technical 13 are in agreement that the Template should be changed to make subsections collapsible for the benefit of the reader. No one else has commented. This hasn't been done yet.

1085:

With respect to sectional linking, my concerns are twofold. First, is it necessary or simply repetitive? Second, what is the logic behind the selection of any particular section that makes it worthy of linking? For example

3093:

Since here is no rush we can take whatever time we need to determine the route forward. I've inserted topic names into my statements above that we may discuss them more clearly, and set up a potential discussion below:

1322:

to be wholly different.To me it is a nasty stratagem in a debate, not a matter of bullying, nor of personal abuse. I have not checked which article redirects to the other. Surely they are not mutual redirect partners?

3476: 3464: 3438: 3791: 2403: 866:

WIth regard to multiple links to the same article, I am not convinced. I see a direct link to the correct position in a longer article as useful. You will have to work hard to convince me to alter that opinion.

2291:

I'll look at it, but does it say that he was a bully? That may have been why it was there. Also, I'm thinking the Sandy Hook incident might be useful to add to that section, if there is an article of course.

2641:

template sections, I am in favour of that, though like the current format as the expanded version. I am unhappy with splitting it. The topic is broad, and the template is intended to navigate the broad topic.

1630:

Something that may not be evident is that the template is designed such as it is suppose to detect which page it is on and expand the associated group only. There are a couple groups that link to sections of

3047:

In this manner, tiresome as it will most assuredly prove, we will achieve a consensus that, at a point in time, the template is 'correct', though we must recognise that it will change over time after that

2229:

on. I'll spend some time today and go through all of the links and we'll see if we can't reach some kind of consensus in the next few hours. I'm sure that there are some that I can agree need to be cut.

1635:

and I'm not exactly sure how it is going to react to those... We should work on condensing those first. Also, I can see that I need to uncollapse the table by default for the outer level, not the groups.

630:

No further discussion has taken place over the past couple of months. One of the main proponents, Fladrif, has been indefinitely blocked. Let's all move on and deal with this matter later if so desired.

1105:, which is absurd in and of itself, because it has nothing whatsoever to do with personal abuse. It is an informal logical fallacy. It is not Bullying or anything even remotely related to bullying. 406:

As for the others, i never said that they were totally unlinked but rather not linked enough to be in the 'related articles' section. They should rather be mentioned/discussed in the main article

3208:

on the basis that we are likely, in my view, to achieve the same result as the full discussion route. Uncontroversial edits will be made and will remain made. Controversial ones will work on the

2128:

article needs to have a section about the effects of bullying causing anxiety. Although psychopathy may apply to the bullies, I believe that it would be appropriate to replace it with the more

1692: 3475:- bullying does get a mention in the article "Alternatively, a bully may project his/her own feelings of vulnerability onto their victim...." and there is plenty on Google connecting the two: 1517:{ec}I understand completely, and that's a good way to go. Here's a crack at it. If you want to reorganize it, go right ahead, but be warned: I suffer from CDO - it's the same thing as OCD 1665:

It is hard to see what it does without putting it on a few of the pages linked to from it. You could post it on the talk pages for those pages similar to what I did asking for opinions on

986:

I've seen both of you suggest that there are parts of policy or guidelines that say certain things should or shouldn't be, yet neither of you have taken the time to hunt down and link what

447: 1651:

once but it was long ago. Mediawiki software itself handles the boldface type recognising the page that is linked to as the page we are on. Most non editing folk just do not notice this.

2735:

There is a consensus against restoring the links referred to below. There isn't really anything else to summarise from this RfC, except that a few editors think the template is too big.

1061:

I would prefer not to do that unless it becomes unavoidable. A search for common ground outranks a search for chapters every time in building genuine consensus. When appropriate we may

1001:

As far as including specific links to sections of a page even though the main page is included. Knowledge's own guideline template does this very thing. Take for example the list for

664:

Discuss edit. This discussion is a little late in that cycle, but will serve. I can be convinced that removal is valid by good arguments, but am currently in favour of their retention.

1915:

I'm looking at a macro level at the bottom section on related topics. My comments are that they are indeed related. WHat I am unsure about is the bar for inclusion of a related topic.

882:

Bullying article in this template. What is special about the subtopics linked in the template that they should be singled out for inclusion assuming you are correct in your position?

3642: 1536: 403:

On the topic of 'rankism', i never said it should be deleted, but rather moved to the 'elements' section. 'Blame Shifting' redirects to 'Blame', which isn't directly related at all.

1068:

The interwiki links that have been removed offer little other than DicDefs, I think. I'm as happy that they go as that they remain. Such value that they added was finite but small.

662:

I made this reversion because I see the content as being valid for the template in that each topic is relevant to the overall subject, bullying. The usual method is Bold Edit: -->

501:

There is no evidence that Cho was ever a victim of bullying while at Virginia Tech. His rampage was due to a severe mental disorder, which went untreated during his time at Tech.

724:

I appreciate you have little time for a few days. No-one will die if this takes a while. May I suggest that you lead this since you are a person objecting by doing the following:

4026: 3697:

I don't have any objections to this proposal. Since the RFC is going to go nowhere fast without a couple more users joining in, I asked others around to gain their perspective.

1512: 3665:

A. Those topics for which the linking target articles include helpful and relevant supporting article section(s) which act to tie in the given target article in a helpful way.

3051:

There is a valid alternative: To declare by consensus that this RFC is impossible to resolve, and to let the template take ts chances n the hurly burly of day to day editing.

2187:

will never be focused on bullying, so at most will only ever be tangental to the topic of bullying. As such, it would be appropriate to note these symptoms in an article like

491: 4043: 261:, be it too much or too little of it can effect bullying, but it's like 'blame', it's present in most every social situations so would be like adding 'speech' or 'intellect' 1946:

is: If we aren't putting this navbox on the linked article, then the article doesn't belong in the navbox. It's a little rule that helps me avoid navboxes with 125 links.

1367:

I've changed the redirect of "Personal abuse" from "Ad hominem" to "Incivility" Of course, we already have "Incivility" as a link, so that doesn't solve all the problems.

3750:

direct relevance that the only thing we accomplish here is to clutter this template and to clutter those articles with a poorly applied Bullying template. Articles like

3691: 1566: 3651:

Those topics which clearly have a large, marked and significant overlap with the topic of bullying, and therefor probably ought to be included in the bullying template.

3984:

And yet someone has jumped the gun and stripped the template down nearly half... So, let's start discussing this and make all proposed edits to the sandbox version (

2397: 468: 2855:- Even if there was consensus, it can still change and I would mostly support Penbat's opinion about this matter. Ideally, any edits made by users in violation of 1977:

I Intended to be more active in this discussion but have been distracted by a few other things, some of which are in real life. With this section, since we have a

3553:

can discuss it in context, but in this template, it is simply clutter that distracts from the articles that carry a strong and obvious relationship to the topic.

3668:

B. Those topics for which the linking target articles have little or no related material, specifically tying in the target article with the subject of bullying.

1353:

is a good question, because all of the various "Abuse" articles are just circular disambiguation pages) or (ii) have somebody write some sourced content for it.

3605:

has too many for my taste, plus, they're poorly done--"yelling" MAYBE has a vague relation to some kinds of bullying (but so does gravity), but it redirects to

3778:, which would be unwieldy otherwise. If you did this style, those who don't care all that much about minutae can just uncollapse the subsections they want. 2188: 1939: 1097:

Some of the things linked to have nothing whatsoever to do with the subject matter, or are so tangential that the links are pointless and entirely extraneous.

2681: 2443: 2192: 194:

can occur from bullying, so i think fair enough to this one, but i think it should be mentioned/discussed in the main article rather than added as a footnote

3384:, such as threatening people directly, persecuting, pushing or shoving, using power to oppress, shouting, driving someone off the road, playing on people's 1943: 1306:, even of just one person by the same other person, most assuredly is a from of bullying. If, every time you as victim, see the abuser, and they call you a 1261: 2040:

Dehumanization, Emotional blackmail, Personality disorders, Psychological manipulation, Psychological trauma, Victim blaming, Victim playing, Victimisation

1843: 74:

Most articles listed under 'related topics' were incredibly loosely related. They were things that can be present in bullying but aren't directly related.

4063: 2829:. With all due respect, I think I see a bit of a weak consensus and there was little participation from some administrators and other users for consensus. 2473:

I had no idea it was still 'running'. Someone needs to be bold, simply, and close it, if closing is what it needs. It seems to have withered on the vine.

1033:

and that the items that have multiple sections be put into groups that are collapsed by default as to not render and excessively Loooong template to view.

77:

Can people please not add articles that they can't site as directly, notably and significantly related to bullying, and that deserve a mention.(unsigned)

2623: 2608: 1782: 682:

Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories.

2832:

But I seriously think we still need a new consensus about this matter, and that is the reason I framed and filed the RFC. There is absolutely no hurry.

2238: 267:

is not an article that to me has any relevance whatsoever. Although, i don't know everything so if you can point out a connection i'd be happy to listen

4140:

and debating the shape of the conference table over this. Life is too short. I may or may not be outa here. I may come back if I have gone. I may not.

3115: 3955: 1345:, which we all agree is just a debate tactic and neither abuse nor bullying. As it stands, having a link to "personal abuse" is pointless. If we keep 1109:

is another. The article is about political manipulation of the public for political ends through fear. It has nothing whatsoever to do with bullying.

4151: 4118: 4095: 3672:

Obviously, any topics that qualify for both Item 1., and item A. above should be in the template. Topics that qualify for item 3. above should not.

3409: 3262: 2693: 2652: 994: 3997: 3975: 3928: 3337: 2845: 2815: 2593: 2252: 2207: 1678: 1660: 1273: 1155: 1080: 579: 2334: 2320: 2301: 2160: 2145: 2103: 1893:

Whistleblower is slightly more complex in that a Whistleblower tends to require protection from reprisals, but is not, I think, bullying relevant.

1645: 1625: 1051: 1002: 421: 370: 336: 305: 156: 115: 3847: 3744: 3710: 3319: 3300: 3284: 1890:

Depression (mood) is a sympton displayed by some people who are bullied. I do not see the requirement for it in the template, but can be persuaded

1723: 1282: 3811: 3784: 3762: 3724: 1745: 3906: 3887: 3870: 3189: 3105: 3080: 3062: 2983: 2965: 2938: 2920: 2894: 2872: 2798: 2675: 2578: 2506: 2484: 1953: 1924: 1202: 967: 941: 3229: 3139: 2221: 2051: 2004: 1990: 1972: 1902: 1751: 1463: 1431: 1362: 1179: 1142: 906: 891: 876: 794: 763: 748: 711: 556: 3626: 3596: 3580: 3560: 3547: 3521: 2118: 1835: 1506: 1376: 1332: 612: 598: 2344: 1416: 564: 538: 3468: 3404:

but it is quite self evident that a control freaks mode of operation is often bullying. There are plenty of Google links connecting the two:

3255: 1555: 3988:) instead of the live template itself until we can find some relatively reasonable middle ground about what should go and what should say. 1610: 1250: 4100:

I don't know what "let this template and the other templates take their chances in due course" means. I would just like this template,

3195: 1942:

into a navbox, but not the individual symptoms as that simply adds clutter. My personal golden rule on navboxes, which I noted in the

1497:

I am inclined against inclusion of this term unless it can be demonstrated that the article is deficient. Drmies is persuasive on this.

1478:

This isn't bullying; one wouldn't refer to slander and libel etc. as "abuse". "Vilification" in the loose sense of the word, maybe, but

2349:

I don't know if anyone's aware of this, but Fladrif, one of the primary motivators of the discussion, has been blocked indefinitely by

2243:

I have been doing other things, but I do support the inclusion of some, but not all, the tangential links, and stick to my list above.

1296: 1010: 4182: 1585: 1210: 2266: 810:

Links to subsections of an article already included are extraneous and unnecesssarily repetitive. There are four of these currently.

1241:

I think we should add others to the list above, and consider turning them into level 4 headings to discuss them in their sections.

1193:

easily by those who come after us. "Shape of the table" again I'm afraid, but discipline also helps us to see what has been agreed.

3836:

And let's ignore Fladrif. I managed to keep him/her civil and on task, and we had productive discussions. Some I won, some I lost.

3042:

Where there are editors who consider that a group has inappropriate entries, reach consensus over the 'final' content of that group

2754: 2084: 3291:

as they can massively bloat article size and load time, they are often of limited relevance, and they're redundant to categories.

3020: 3002:

IMO this is a legitimate deletion as I think the Related Topics section goes to far afield of the central theme of the template.--

2785: 1714:

I confirm that I believe the template should link to subsections of a page, but only when there is no main article on that topic.

3657:

Those topics for which most would probably agree there is not enough overlap to warrant their inclusion in the bullying template.

3372:- bullying is self evidently a form of abuse, it is a social construct. Abuse in particular forms or contexts is deemed bullying. 3223: 1017: 3831:

more time in this area, and I doubt anyone else's is either. Note, also, that articles and the template need to be kept in step.

3507: 2466: 3480: 3442: 3144: 1878: 4178: 4091: 3902: 3866: 3807: 3706: 3333: 3185: 3076: 2979: 2934: 2868: 2841: 2781: 2671: 2564: 2560: 2502: 2462: 2434: 2415: 1817: 1175: 673: 644: 640: 442: 4069:

trying to be neutral. The above discussion back in April contained, in my view, a very weak consensus, but after all, there

3168: 2109:

whatsoever. Given that there is no reliably sourced basis to link either to bullying, it should be easy to reach agreement.

2042:. I say this without visiting the articles concerned, and base it upon my judgment that these topics are genuinely related. 1400: 1386: 856: 255:

is like i said for envy and narcissism and, it's non essential to bullying and far too common outside of bullying situations

521: 397: 94: 3351:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

3360:

Ive been seriously reluctant to get involved in this discussion but it seems to have gone on for an eternity. To pick on

413: 362: 297: 107: 2438: 2419: 1981:

agreement that it needs to be rendered more relevant, might we approach it with a list of the items that should remain?

1776: 218:

are a part of day-to-day life, they don't crop up in bullying situations any more or less than in most normal situations

1491: 1287:

The one is a redirect to the other. Neither of them are forms of bullying. They are abuse of language, not of people.

3755:

Defined in context within the bullying article or related? Certainly. Placed in this template? Low value clutter.

3715:

I basically agree, however it would help to simply lay out which links are to be removed and which are questionable.

621: 361:

Give you a break? Look, i'm trying to be respectful here, i'm not harassing you, i'm just being as clear as possible

3654:

Those topics which are perhaps somewhat ambiguous, with some significant overlap, and some significant non-overlap.

3200:

Please enter your thoughts about the alternate proposal including the usual support/oppose/neutral in this section

2285: 3437:

article includes "While some bullies are arrogant and narcissistic....". Plenty of google links on the connection

3361: 2999: 2311:

in the Weise article says no such thing - neither that he was bullied nor, as you speculate, that he was a bully.

1808:

Ad hominem and culture of fear should be deleted. If other links are similarly unrelated, they should be as well.

1473: 4163: 3251: 2746: 2212:

It seems to me from the above that we have 3/4 editors in agreement at least on all but 8 of them. It's a start.

2133: 3585:

sigh... Unfortunately, this all revolves around a fundamental difference of opinion regarding the purpose of a

1113:

is about the legal definition of definition. There are many more examples. There are links that are repetitive.

3613:

is to be added to the infobox Template:Psychological manipulation (a template with a similar set of problems:

3149:

Please enter your thoughts about the main proposal including the usual support/oppose/neutral in this section

4051: 3460: 3430: 3128:. I am setting up two subheadings so we may offer views, views which I hope will lead to a consensus, below: 3120:

My belief is that we should discuss whether to follow the discussion paths labelled above. The two paths are

2544: 517: 3212:

principle anyway. In terms of the streamlining of effort to achieve a similar result I prefer this option.

2530: 825:

Links in Templates should be limited to articles, not Wictionary entries. There are six of these currently.

486: 4104:

the other templates where I've identified similar problems, to respect policy and the (weak) consensus of

1260:

so that we don't disrupt the site while making modifications. I've posted a test of the sandbox template

698:

main article. Others are redirects. This seems silly, quite frankly. If the template links to the article

4007:

Despite taking an interest in this template, including setting off the RFC, I've missed this discussion.

3647:

Here is one way in which I might subdivide some of these various topics which have been considered here:

3355: 2713: 1666: 1264:

to request some more input on the topic from other editors on a page that I know has been active lately.

806:

Let's start with some obvious exclusions on base principles of what a template is supposed to be about.

2551:, I think we should discuss whether we should re-add the links that were previously removed. Thoughts? 2361: 1787:

A number of links are directed to articles that have nothing to do with the subject matter whatsoever.

1482:

is (rightly) mostly concerned with the legal aspects of the concept, not the connotations of the word.

990:

remember as being there. I find this is somewhat counter-productive and encourage you both to do that.

589:

anyway, that may be enough. Incidentally, as you know, it is Wiki advice not an official Wiki policy.--

38: 3530:

is fundamental to properly understanding the underlying psychology of bullying. To take your example,

3417: 1038:

Those are the only two issues I've seen discussed here. If there are more, I would be happy to offer

249:

would fall under both the 'mention/discuss in the main article' and the 'add to the elements' sections

3985: 3680:

to steer the template more towards the exclusion of such links, rather than towards their inclusion.

1598: 1257: 1071:

I agree with your point on sectional linking in a template. And about the collapsing of the template

3535: 3771: 3527: 3472: 3067:

Given Timtrent's statements, I concur with the above proposals and ideas on how we should proceed.

2373: 1848:

A number of links appear to be so tangential to the subject matter as to be inappropriate to link.

685: 477:

removes Tyler Clementi again from this template, let me know and I will block them for disruption.

279:

seems to describe a situation where someone is pretending to be bullied and therefore isn't notable

993:

As for the content of the template itself. I see no problem with offering a reasonable number of

4114: 4059: 4039: 3614: 2689: 2619: 2604: 2391: 2379: 2136:." This helps explain why some bullies are what they are and is related to bullying in general. 1799:

are three previously identified above. There may be more. No one else has commented specifically

478: 417: 366: 301: 111: 3857:

of articles or templates. Perhaps it's time to ask other WikiProject members to get involved...

2038:

Scapegoating Self-esteem Victim blaming Victim playing Victimisation I believe we should retain

1995:

To be brutally honest, I think they all should be deleted. Not a single one should be retained.

3993: 3951: 3924: 3602: 3534:

is quite often referenced in the literature as a common bullying tactic and gets covered here:

3315: 3280: 3268: 2811: 2769: 2765: 2589: 2514: 2367: 2330: 2297: 2234: 2141: 2080: 1674: 1641: 1606: 1269: 1047: 721:

there is no client side issue. So may we, please, discount that and deal instead with the meat?

620: 428: 69: 47: 17: 459:

This suicide is significant. Heck, it reached Barak Obama's mouth! It was caused by bullying.

3413: 2750: 2385: 496: 3687: 3531: 3239: 2944: 505: 409: 188:

redirects to 'blame', which is a fairly universal thing and not specific enough to bullying

3033:. The major issue is to define the RFC. I feel we might proceed in the following manner. 829: 8: 3795: 3720: 3446: 3247: 2742: 1705: 1341:

if there was actually an article on the subject matter. Instead, it's just a redirect to

817: 552: 296:

So there are my opinions, if you have counter-arguments i'm more than happy to hear them

4174: 4146: 4110: 4087: 4055: 4035: 3970: 3898: 3882: 3862: 3842: 3803: 3759: 3702: 3593: 3557: 3518: 3456: 3426: 3329: 3218: 3181: 3163: 3134: 3100: 3072: 3057: 3013: 2975: 2958: 2930: 2913: 2889: 2864: 2837: 2795: 2777: 2685: 2667: 2647: 2615: 2600: 2575: 2556: 2498: 2479: 2458: 2430: 2411: 2248: 2204: 2047: 1986: 1950: 1920: 1898: 1869:

I suggest that these three be deleted. The others should be gone through item by item.

1860:

are three identified above. There may be more. No one else has commented specifically.

1719: 1656: 1581: 1551: 1502: 1437: 1427: 1328: 1246: 1198: 1171: 1091: 1076: 963: 937: 902: 872: 790: 744: 669: 636: 608: 575: 464: 438: 4136:

policy, compliance, and so much else besides. I do not care about harking back to the

3853:

were a couple of limited consensus between some users, but we do not need to maintain

2925:

I've added that to my statement. I hope this helps understand the situation somewhat.

206:

is not an essential part of bullying and is far too non-specific to be in the template

4020: 3989: 3964:

I imagine we rely on consensus. There is a certain irony about that with this topic.

3947: 3915: 3775: 3306: 3271: 2807: 2585: 2538: 2493:

Yep it has. If there are no objections, I am going to close this matter immediately.

2326: 2316: 2293: 2281: 2230: 2217: 2156: 2137: 2114: 2099: 2076: 2000: 1968: 1874: 1831: 1813: 1772: 1741: 1699: 1670: 1637: 1621: 1602: 1530: 1459: 1412: 1372: 1358: 1265: 1138: 1043: 887: 852: 811: 759: 707: 513: 237:, i would put with CP-TSD in the sense that it's better off discussed in the article 3622: 3576: 3543: 3503: 3296: 2524: 1702: 1487: 1396: 1292: 814: 781: 594: 534: 393: 332: 152: 90: 1256:

That is fine. I've created a working draft for the modifications to the template

835: 3683: 3610: 1792: 1441: 1230: 1106: 1027: 2883:"rush to revert" I would like to see any prior consensus examined in each case. 2764:

Should we restore the links that were removed from the template back in April? (

923:

I did get time after all. The rationale for linking to several sections of (eg)

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3779: 3739: 3716: 3243: 2737: 2453:

Time to move forward and deal with this matter at a later time if it's needed.

2355: 2124: 1346: 1338: 1225: 1129: 1102: 548: 1449:

be done is to simply place a note on the article talk page saying that a new,

1087: 730:

List those items where you believe discussion may include them or exclude them

4170: 4141: 4083: 4074: 4010: 3965: 3894: 3877: 3858: 3854: 3837: 3799: 3756: 3751: 3698: 3606: 3590: 3554: 3515: 3401: 3397: 3385: 3325: 3267:

The RFC is a mess, and the template is too long and ridiculously off-topic.

3213: 3209: 3177: 3176:- I concur with Timtrent, but I also support Penbat's views on the template. 3158: 3129: 3095: 3068: 3052: 3005: 2971: 2950: 2926: 2905: 2884: 2860: 2856: 2833: 2826: 2792: 2773: 2663: 2642: 2572: 2552: 2548: 2494: 2474: 2454: 2426: 2425:

the work of Star767, who is suspected to be a sockpuppet of the banned user.

2407: 2244: 2201: 2043: 1982: 1947: 1916: 1894: 1857: 1715: 1652: 1577: 1547: 1498: 1423: 1324: 1242: 1194: 1167: 1118: 1072: 1062: 1006: 959: 933: 898: 868: 786: 740: 665: 632: 604: 571: 460: 434: 3946:

just want to make sure that it is clear how this will be handled to decide.

1708: 841: 838: 826: 820: 3485: 2534: 2312: 2277: 2213: 2152: 2110: 2095: 1996: 1964: 1870: 1827: 1809: 1768: 1737: 1617: 1526: 1455: 1408: 1368: 1354: 1134: 883: 848: 755: 703: 509: 129: 3494:- the self-esteem dynamics of the bully and the target are very pertinent. 2200:

psychopathy, can be viewed and clicked through via the articles directly.

231:, as with before, is more suited to the 'elements' section of the template 3618: 3572: 3539: 3499: 3491: 3452: 3292: 2821: 2657:

Also, to clarify, that dispute with Penbat, Star767 and Fladrif happened

2520: 2184: 1483: 1392: 1288: 590: 530: 389: 328: 148: 86: 2806:: I agree that there was enough consensus without the now blocked user. 1005:, almost a dozen of the subpages, which are all transcluded on the main 733:

List those items which you believe have no place in the template at all.

4073:

consensus against restoring the links referred to below. We can always

3422: 3235:

maybe do a thumbs up/down on each one then decide how to fit them in.

2307: 2272: 1853: 1849: 1796: 1788: 1479: 1342: 1235: 1220: 1159: 1126: 1122: 1110: 1098: 690: 474: 453: 2682:

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Psychology#Review_of_navigational_templates

1826:

It appears that we have agreement of Defamation, so I'll remove that.

1597:

This section didn't exist when I hit edit for an above section... See

1133:

percentage of the links have so little to do with the subject matter.

954:

this is the bullying section. That section refers to the main article

3876:

I suggest it with all seriousness, but can't find a valid rationale.

3039:

Determine one by one whether each group has any inappropriate entries

2350: 1163: 285:

to me, means exactly the same as bullying, but that's just my opinion

832: 200:

should be in the 'elements' section, rather that 'related articles'.

4137: 3609:--now tell me how "shout" relates to bullying. Next thing you know 3434: 3380: 3378:- article mentions bullying "The symptoms of aggressive anger are: 1632: 955: 951: 924: 699: 695: 603:

That was what my (etc) meant, though I concede it was ambiguous :)

586: 727:

List those items that are, beyond question, suitable for inclusion

547:

If anything he appears to be the bully, I will delete it again, --

3661:

Here is a second way that these topics are also being evaluated:

3391: 2180: 1114: 433:

How notable does it get? Why does one editor keep removing this?

3774:, which pretty much was stuck with being huge - I it modeled on 3036:

Ignore Fladrif's edits completely. His blocking is a distraction

2179:

This goes back to my original argument though. The articles on

273:

is one i would classify as 'mention/discuss in the main article'

3394:- chuck this out I think somebody else might have inserted this 3482:

Projection is the key psychological mechanism behind bullying.

1454:

is improper for the Template to direct people to the article.

1013:. What I "may" suggest in this case is that the template use 3459:

article includes a section on psychopathy and bullying - see

3375: 3369: 3429:

article includes a section on narcissism and bullying - see

1349:

as a link either (i) we have to redirect it somewhere else (

3643:

A suggested general rule for inclusion in the template...

3029:

I see where you are coming from. However I would include

2662:

there is consensus to remove them, it will be removed.

1513:

Organizing the specific types of links under discussion

1003:

Knowledge:List of policies and guidelines#Article style

3566:

Carrying on with your "Moving the goalposts" example:

3305:

I am not opposed to Risker's suggestion-- chop away.

3157:

be the correct route to full consensus, it will fail.

2571:

tangental to bullying. It dilutes the desired links.

4050:

had to be another RFC: on the surface, it looks like

3792:

blocked from editing Knowledge because of his actions

448:

Repeated removal of Tyler Clementi from this template

2728:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

1094:

is going to get the reader to where they want to go.

3365:connections. To briefly run through each article: 1938:template. You would put a link to an article like 1166:, two uninvolved administrators for input as well. 3488:- is clearly a closely related concept to bullying 3324:I have no objections to Risker's proposal either. 585:Im not sure, ive put a link to it at the start of 529:deleted - also no mention of bullying in article-- 2519:All right. As it has already been stated above, 85:of which were understood back in Freud's day. -- 3400:- there is no mention of bullying currently in 2306:No, an editor relatively recently added to the 243:isn't worth rehashing, i've been over it before 3601:I agree with Resolute. Less is more, and even 3790:but also myself and many other users and was 2731:A summary of the conclusions reached follows. 2859:(i.e. Star767/Farrajak) should be reverted. 2073:(that was HUGE at the time in the late 80's) 3617:is legal, not psychological manipulation). 1616:there are any others that should be added. 3416:- this article has a section on bullying: 1125:(which is by and large devoid of content) 1011:Template:Knowledge policies and guidelines 651:The following discussion has been closed. 2827:Consensus can, has and always will change 3463:. Also plenty of relevant google links: 3461:Workplace_bullying#Personality_disorders 3431:Workplace_bullying#Personality_disorders 1391:I could see this being deemed relevant. 225:such nor should be personality disorders 212:is again, non-essential and non-specific 3526:They're not so tangential, for example 1944:discussion at the Amanda Todd talk page 1337:I wouldn't be for removing the link to 1302:I'm going to place a counter argument. 1121:. Pick one, not both. Other links like 950:in that it links to a meaty section in 14: 192:Complex post-traumatic stress disorder 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 1887:Sycophancy is not bullying and may go 1436:I would think that to be an improper 565:Inclusion of WIkipedia policies (etc) 2722:The following discussion is closed. 25: 2402:and endorsed by the community, see 1693:Linking to sub-sections of articles 23: 739:required, but I can be convinced. 24: 4193: 4109:yourself as "quite pissed off". 3347:The discussion above is closed. 3116:Discussion on the path to follow 1963:should be eliminated in the end. 29: 3914:Delete-- pls ping me. Unwatch. 3263:Ridiculously long and off-topic 2134:antisocial personality disorder 1009:page, are linked separately in 128:Profanity is really covered by 4027:discussion that led to the RFC 3418:Just_world_hypothesis#Bullying 3269:This is the version I support. 1519:except the letters are in the 1101:is one. It is a redirect from 1018:Navbox with collapsible groups 13: 1: 4152:19:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC) 4119:18:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC) 4096:03:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC) 4064:19:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC) 4044:16:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC) 3998:01:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC) 3976:18:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC) 3956:15:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC) 3929:02:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC) 3907:08:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC) 3888:08:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC) 3871:04:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC) 3848:00:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC) 3812:00:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC) 3785:23:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC) 3763:14:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC) 3745:23:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC) 3725:06:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC) 3711:23:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC) 3692:00:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC) 3627:18:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC) 3536:moving_the_goalposts#Bullying 3338:00:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC) 3320:19:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC) 3301:19:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC) 3285:18:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC) 2755:13:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC) 2680:I've started a discussion at 1537:Links outside of en.wikipedia 1525:!!!!Let's see where we stand. 557:22:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC) 492:01:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC) 469:11:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC) 443:09:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC) 133:package of bullying elements. 4183:20:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC) 3597:13:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC) 3581:07:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC) 3561:00:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC) 3548:16:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC) 3522:16:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC) 3508:16:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC) 3256:01:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC) 3224:08:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC) 3190:13:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC) 3169:08:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC) 3140:08:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC) 3106:08:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC) 3081:14:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC) 3063:17:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC) 3021:02:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC) 2984:15:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC) 2966:02:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC) 2939:01:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC) 2921:14:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC) 2895:09:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC) 2873:07:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC) 2846:03:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC) 2816:02:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC) 2799:02:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC) 2786:02:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC) 2507:18:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC) 2485:18:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC) 2467:18:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC) 946:I do see a peculiarity with 645:18:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC) 613:16:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC) 599:12:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC) 580:11:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC) 539:20:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC) 522:19:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC) 7: 1667:Talk:Suicide of Amanda Todd 780:I think we should consider 10: 4198: 2335:17:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC) 2321:17:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC) 2302:16:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC) 2286:15:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC) 2271:I was looking through the 2253:15:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC) 2239:15:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC) 2222:14:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC) 2208:14:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC) 2161:13:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC) 2146:13:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC) 2119:13:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC) 2104:02:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC) 2085:00:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC) 2052:23:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC) 2005:00:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC) 1991:21:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC) 1973:20:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC) 1954:15:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC) 1925:19:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC) 1903:18:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC) 1879:18:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC) 1836:01:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC) 1818:18:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC) 1777:18:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC) 1746:18:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC) 1724:19:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC) 1679:19:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC) 1661:19:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC) 1646:19:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC) 1626:19:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC) 1611:19:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC) 1586:19:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC) 1556:19:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC) 1507:19:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC) 1492:18:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC) 1464:19:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC) 1432:19:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC) 1417:18:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC) 1401:18:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC) 1377:14:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC) 1363:19:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC) 1333:19:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC) 1297:18:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC) 1283:Ad hominem, personal abuse 1274:19:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC) 1251:18:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC) 1211:Are these links extraneous 1203:17:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC) 1180:16:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC) 1143:17:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC) 1081:16:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC) 1052:16:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC) 968:22:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC) 942:19:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC) 907:18:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC) 892:18:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC) 877:18:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC) 857:17:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC) 795:16:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC) 764:16:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC) 749:14:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC) 712:14:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC) 674:13:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC) 3986:Template:Bullying/sandbox 2694:16:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC) 2676:16:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC) 2653:20:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC) 2624:19:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC) 2609:19:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC) 2594:16:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC) 2579:16:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC) 2565:18:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC) 2439:18:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC) 1698:currently linked to are; 1599:Template:Bullying/sandbox 663:Revert of bold edit : --> 3772:Template:Horse_equipment 3528:psychological projection 3473:Psychological projection 3349:Please do not modify it. 2947:really the right link?-- 2725:Please do not modify it. 1576:I confirm that I agree. 1546:I confirm that I agree. 654:Please do not modify it. 229:Psychological Projection 4164:Links to keep or delete 3615:Trojan horse (business) 2420:05:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC) 1567:Collapsing the Template 897:wider consensus built. 422:14:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC) 398:13:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC) 371:21:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC) 337:21:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC) 306:21:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC) 157:19:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC) 116:18:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC) 95:18:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC) 2125:"with all due respect" 1318:being removed. I find 1156:Psychology WikiProject 1117:actually redirects to 18:Template talk:Bullying 3414:Just-world hypothesis 3210:Bold, Revert, Discuss 1063:do things differently 222:Personality Disorders 42:of past discussions. 3532:moving the goalposts 2549:consensus can change 2325:Good enough for me. 2189:Symptoms of bullying 1940:Symptoms of bullying 1562:Additional comments: 235:Psychological Trauma 3447:Personal boundaries 3356:Comment from Penbat 2714:RfC: Template links 2193:Effects of bullying 1934:valuable link in a 1864:Additional comments 1803:Additional comments 1761:Additional comments 1730:Additional comments 1592:Additional comments 1308:useless little shit 1088:Bullying#Bystanders 216:Personal Boundaries 198:Emotional Blackmail 3457:workplace bullying 3427:workplace bullying 3230:"related" is vague 3196:alternate proposal 3126:alternate proposal 1314:Thus I am against 1092:Workplace bullying 1042:on those as well. 3776:Template:Scouting 3259: 3242:comment added by 2820:When I talked to 2711: 2710: 2444:Close discussion? 2074: 1700:Parental bullying 812:Parental bullying 782:chickens and eggs 686:WP:Categorization 525: 508:comment added by 412:comment added by 67: 66: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4189: 4149: 4144: 4075:change consensus 4024: 4014: 3973: 3968: 3921: 3885: 3880: 3845: 3840: 3782: 3742: 3312: 3277: 3258: 3236: 3221: 3216: 3166: 3161: 3137: 3132: 3103: 3098: 3060: 3055: 3019: 3016: 2970:Link corrected. 2964: 2961: 2919: 2916: 2892: 2887: 2727: 2650: 2645: 2482: 2477: 2401: 2094:make that link. 2072: 1844:Tangential links 1451:really important 1032: 1026: 1022: 1016: 656: 627: 626: 524: 502: 489: 485: 481: 424: 63: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4197: 4196: 4192: 4191: 4190: 4188: 4187: 4186: 4166: 4147: 4142: 4018: 4008: 3971: 3966: 3919: 3883: 3878: 3843: 3838: 3780: 3740: 3645: 3611:Tears for Fears 3358: 3353: 3352: 3310: 3275: 3265: 3237: 3232: 3219: 3214: 3198: 3164: 3159: 3147: 3135: 3130: 3118: 3101: 3096: 3058: 3053: 3014: 3003: 2959: 2948: 2914: 2903: 2890: 2885: 2762: 2723: 2716: 2648: 2643: 2517: 2480: 2475: 2446: 2404:this ANI thread 2353: 2347: 2269: 1846: 1793:Culture of fear 1785: 1783:Unrelated links 1754: 1703:Prison bullying 1695: 1569: 1539: 1515: 1476: 1442:Culture of fear 1389: 1387:Culture of fear 1285: 1231:Culture of fear 1213: 1107:Culture of fear 1030: 1024: 1020: 1014: 995:interwiki links 830:Divide and rule 815:Prison bullying 652: 625: 567: 503: 499: 487: 483: 479: 450: 431: 407: 72: 59: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4195: 4165: 4162: 4161: 4160: 4159: 4158: 4157: 4156: 4155: 4154: 4126: 4125: 4124: 4123: 4122: 4121: 4052:forum-shopping 4005: 4004: 4003: 4002: 4001: 4000: 3979: 3978: 3959: 3958: 3942: 3941: 3940: 3939: 3938: 3937: 3936: 3935: 3934: 3933: 3932: 3931: 3833: 3832: 3827: 3826: 3825: 3824: 3823: 3822: 3821: 3820: 3819: 3818: 3817: 3816: 3815: 3814: 3730: 3729: 3728: 3727: 3670: 3669: 3666: 3659: 3658: 3655: 3652: 3644: 3641: 3640: 3639: 3638: 3637: 3636: 3635: 3634: 3633: 3632: 3631: 3630: 3629: 3496: 3495: 3489: 3483: 3470: 3450: 3444: 3420: 3411: 3395: 3389: 3373: 3357: 3354: 3346: 3345: 3344: 3343: 3342: 3341: 3340: 3264: 3261: 3231: 3228: 3227: 3226: 3197: 3194: 3193: 3192: 3171: 3146: 3143: 3117: 3114: 3113: 3112: 3111: 3110: 3109: 3108: 3086: 3085: 3084: 3083: 3049: 3045: 3044: 3043: 3040: 3037: 2993: 2992: 2991: 2990: 2989: 2988: 2987: 2986: 2897: 2875: 2850: 2849: 2848: 2830: 2801: 2761: 2760: 2759: 2758: 2757: 2718: 2717: 2715: 2712: 2709: 2708: 2707: 2706: 2705: 2704: 2703: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2699: 2698: 2697: 2696: 2631: 2630: 2629: 2628: 2627: 2626: 2611: 2516: 2515:New discussion 2513: 2512: 2511: 2510: 2509: 2488: 2487: 2470: 2469: 2445: 2442: 2346: 2343: 2342: 2341: 2340: 2339: 2338: 2337: 2268: 2265: 2264: 2263: 2262: 2261: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2054: 2020: 2019: 2018: 2017: 2016: 2015: 2014: 2013: 2012: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2007: 1957: 1956: 1928: 1927: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1891: 1888: 1882: 1881: 1845: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1838: 1821: 1820: 1784: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1753: 1750: 1749: 1748: 1727: 1726: 1694: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1589: 1588: 1568: 1565: 1559: 1558: 1538: 1535: 1514: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1475: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1388: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1347:Personal abuse 1339:Personal abuse 1316:Personal abuse 1312: 1304:Personal abuse 1284: 1281: 1279: 1277: 1276: 1239: 1238: 1233: 1228: 1226:Personal abuse 1223: 1212: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1190: 1183: 1182: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1147: 1146: 1145: 1130:Whistleblowing 1103:Personal abuse 1095: 1069: 1066: 1055: 1054: 1036: 1035: 1034: 999: 991: 979: 978: 977: 976: 975: 974: 973: 972: 971: 970: 929: 914: 913: 912: 911: 910: 909: 864: 845: 844: 823: 804: 803: 802: 801: 800: 799: 798: 797: 771: 770: 769: 768: 767: 766: 736: 735: 734: 731: 728: 722: 715: 714: 658: 657: 648: 647: 624: 622:This reversion 619: 618: 617: 616: 615: 566: 563: 562: 561: 560: 559: 542: 541: 498: 495: 449: 446: 430: 429:Tyler Clementi 427: 426: 425: 404: 386: 384: 383: 382: 381: 380: 379: 378: 377: 376: 375: 374: 373: 348: 347: 346: 345: 344: 343: 342: 341: 340: 339: 315: 314: 313: 312: 311: 310: 309: 308: 287: 286: 280: 277:Victim Playing 274: 271:Victim Blaming 268: 262: 256: 250: 244: 238: 232: 226: 219: 213: 207: 201: 195: 189: 186:Blame shifting 182: 181: 180: 179: 178: 177: 176: 175: 164: 163: 162: 161: 160: 159: 139: 138: 137: 136: 135: 134: 121: 120: 119: 118: 105: 98: 97: 80: 71: 70:Related Topics 68: 65: 64: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4194: 4185: 4184: 4180: 4179:contributions 4176: 4172: 4171:Lord Sjones23 4153: 4150: 4145: 4139: 4134: 4133: 4132: 4131: 4130: 4129: 4128: 4127: 4120: 4116: 4112: 4111:MartinPoulter 4107: 4103: 4099: 4098: 4097: 4093: 4092:contributions 4089: 4085: 4084:Lord Sjones23 4081: 4076: 4072: 4067: 4066: 4065: 4061: 4057: 4056:MartinPoulter 4053: 4048: 4047: 4046: 4045: 4041: 4037: 4036:MartinPoulter 4032: 4028: 4022: 4016: 4012: 3999: 3995: 3991: 3987: 3983: 3982: 3981: 3980: 3977: 3974: 3969: 3963: 3962: 3961: 3960: 3957: 3953: 3949: 3944: 3943: 3930: 3926: 3922: 3918: 3912: 3911: 3910: 3909: 3908: 3904: 3903:contributions 3900: 3896: 3895:Lord Sjones23 3891: 3890: 3889: 3886: 3881: 3874: 3873: 3872: 3868: 3867:contributions 3864: 3860: 3859:Lord Sjones23 3856: 3851: 3850: 3849: 3846: 3841: 3835: 3834: 3829: 3828: 3813: 3809: 3808:contributions 3805: 3801: 3800:Lord Sjones23 3797: 3793: 3788: 3787: 3786: 3783: 3777: 3773: 3768: 3767: 3766: 3765: 3764: 3761: 3758: 3753: 3752:Shout (sound) 3748: 3747: 3746: 3743: 3736: 3735: 3734: 3733: 3732: 3731: 3726: 3722: 3718: 3714: 3713: 3712: 3708: 3707:contributions 3704: 3700: 3699:Lord Sjones23 3696: 3695: 3694: 3693: 3689: 3685: 3681: 3677: 3673: 3667: 3664: 3663: 3662: 3656: 3653: 3650: 3649: 3648: 3628: 3624: 3620: 3616: 3612: 3608: 3607:Shout (sound) 3604: 3600: 3599: 3598: 3595: 3592: 3588: 3584: 3583: 3582: 3578: 3574: 3570: 3568: 3564: 3563: 3562: 3559: 3556: 3551: 3550: 3549: 3545: 3541: 3537: 3533: 3529: 3525: 3524: 3523: 3520: 3517: 3512: 3511: 3510: 3509: 3505: 3501: 3493: 3490: 3487: 3484: 3481: 3479: 3477: 3474: 3471: 3469: 3467: 3465: 3462: 3458: 3454: 3451: 3448: 3445: 3443: 3441: 3439: 3436: 3432: 3428: 3424: 3421: 3419: 3415: 3412: 3410: 3408: 3406: 3403: 3402:control freak 3399: 3398:Control freak 3396: 3393: 3390: 3387: 3383: 3382: 3377: 3374: 3371: 3368: 3367: 3366: 3363: 3350: 3339: 3335: 3334:contributions 3331: 3327: 3326:Lord Sjones23 3323: 3322: 3321: 3317: 3313: 3309: 3304: 3303: 3302: 3298: 3294: 3289: 3288: 3287: 3286: 3282: 3278: 3274: 3270: 3260: 3257: 3253: 3249: 3245: 3241: 3225: 3222: 3217: 3211: 3207: 3203: 3202: 3201: 3191: 3187: 3186:contributions 3183: 3179: 3178:Lord Sjones23 3175: 3172: 3170: 3167: 3162: 3155: 3152: 3151: 3150: 3145:main proposal 3142: 3141: 3138: 3133: 3127: 3123: 3122:main proposal 3107: 3104: 3099: 3092: 3091: 3090: 3089: 3088: 3087: 3082: 3078: 3077:contributions 3074: 3070: 3069:Lord Sjones23 3066: 3065: 3064: 3061: 3056: 3050: 3046: 3041: 3038: 3035: 3034: 3032: 3028: 3025: 3024: 3023: 3022: 3017: 3011: 3010: 3009: 3001: 2997: 2985: 2981: 2980:contributions 2977: 2973: 2972:Lord Sjones23 2969: 2968: 2967: 2962: 2956: 2955: 2954: 2946: 2943:Thank LS, is 2942: 2941: 2940: 2936: 2935:contributions 2932: 2928: 2927:Lord Sjones23 2924: 2923: 2922: 2917: 2911: 2910: 2909: 2901: 2898: 2896: 2893: 2888: 2881: 2876: 2874: 2870: 2869:contributions 2866: 2862: 2861:Lord Sjones23 2858: 2854: 2851: 2847: 2843: 2842:contributions 2839: 2835: 2834:Lord Sjones23 2831: 2828: 2823: 2819: 2818: 2817: 2813: 2809: 2805: 2802: 2800: 2797: 2794: 2790: 2789: 2788: 2787: 2783: 2782:contributions 2779: 2775: 2774:Lord Sjones23 2771: 2767: 2756: 2752: 2748: 2744: 2740: 2739: 2734: 2733: 2732: 2729: 2726: 2720: 2719: 2695: 2691: 2687: 2686:MartinPoulter 2683: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2673: 2672:contributions 2669: 2665: 2664:Lord Sjones23 2660: 2656: 2655: 2654: 2651: 2646: 2639: 2638: 2637: 2636: 2635: 2634: 2633: 2632: 2625: 2621: 2617: 2616:MartinPoulter 2612: 2610: 2606: 2602: 2601:MartinPoulter 2597: 2596: 2595: 2591: 2587: 2582: 2581: 2580: 2577: 2574: 2569: 2568: 2567: 2566: 2562: 2561:contributions 2558: 2554: 2553:Lord Sjones23 2550: 2546: 2543: 2540: 2536: 2532: 2529: 2526: 2522: 2508: 2504: 2503:contributions 2500: 2496: 2495:Lord Sjones23 2492: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2486: 2483: 2478: 2472: 2471: 2468: 2464: 2463:contributions 2460: 2456: 2455:Lord Sjones23 2452: 2451: 2450: 2441: 2440: 2436: 2435:contributions 2432: 2428: 2427:Lord Sjones23 2422: 2421: 2417: 2416:contributions 2413: 2409: 2408:Lord Sjones23 2405: 2399: 2396: 2393: 2390: 2387: 2384: 2381: 2378: 2375: 2372: 2369: 2366: 2363: 2360: 2357: 2352: 2336: 2332: 2328: 2324: 2323: 2322: 2318: 2314: 2309: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2299: 2295: 2290: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2283: 2279: 2274: 2254: 2250: 2246: 2245:Fiddle Faddle 2242: 2241: 2240: 2236: 2232: 2227: 2223: 2219: 2215: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2206: 2203: 2198: 2195:, and to put 2194: 2190: 2186: 2182: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2162: 2158: 2154: 2149: 2148: 2147: 2143: 2139: 2135: 2131: 2126: 2122: 2121: 2120: 2116: 2112: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2101: 2097: 2093: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2082: 2078: 2053: 2049: 2045: 2044:Fiddle Faddle 2041: 2036: 2035: 2034: 2033: 2032: 2031: 2030: 2029: 2028: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2022: 2021: 2006: 2002: 1998: 1994: 1993: 1992: 1988: 1984: 1983:Fiddle Faddle 1980: 1976: 1975: 1974: 1970: 1966: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1955: 1952: 1949: 1945: 1941: 1937: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1926: 1922: 1918: 1917:Fiddle Faddle 1914: 1913: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1904: 1900: 1896: 1895:Fiddle Faddle 1892: 1889: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1880: 1876: 1872: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1861: 1859: 1858:Whistleblower 1855: 1851: 1837: 1833: 1829: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1819: 1815: 1811: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1804: 1800: 1798: 1794: 1790: 1778: 1774: 1770: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1758: 1747: 1743: 1739: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1731: 1725: 1721: 1717: 1716:Fiddle Faddle 1713: 1712: 1711: 1710: 1707: 1704: 1701: 1680: 1676: 1672: 1668: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1658: 1654: 1653:Fiddle Faddle 1649: 1648: 1647: 1643: 1639: 1634: 1629: 1628: 1627: 1623: 1619: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1608: 1604: 1600: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1587: 1583: 1579: 1578:Fiddle Faddle 1575: 1574: 1573: 1564: 1563: 1557: 1553: 1549: 1548:Fiddle Faddle 1545: 1544: 1543: 1534: 1532: 1528: 1524: 1522: 1508: 1504: 1500: 1499:Fiddle Faddle 1496: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1489: 1485: 1481: 1465: 1461: 1457: 1452: 1448: 1443: 1439: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1429: 1425: 1424:Fiddle Faddle 1420: 1419: 1418: 1414: 1410: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1398: 1394: 1378: 1374: 1370: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1360: 1356: 1352: 1348: 1344: 1340: 1336: 1335: 1334: 1330: 1326: 1325:Fiddle Faddle 1321: 1317: 1313: 1309: 1305: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1294: 1290: 1280: 1275: 1271: 1267: 1263: 1259: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1248: 1244: 1243:Fiddle Faddle 1237: 1234: 1232: 1229: 1227: 1224: 1222: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1204: 1200: 1196: 1195:Fiddle Faddle 1191: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1181: 1177: 1176:contributions 1173: 1169: 1168:Lord Sjones23 1165: 1161: 1158:, as well as 1157: 1152: 1151: 1144: 1140: 1136: 1131: 1128: 1124: 1120: 1119:Control freak 1116: 1112: 1108: 1104: 1100: 1096: 1093: 1089: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1078: 1074: 1073:Fiddle Faddle 1070: 1067: 1064: 1059: 1058: 1057: 1056: 1053: 1049: 1045: 1041: 1037: 1029: 1019: 1012: 1008: 1004: 1000: 998:en.wikipedia. 996: 992: 989: 985: 984: 981: 980: 969: 965: 961: 960:Fiddle Faddle 957: 953: 949: 945: 944: 943: 939: 935: 934:Fiddle Faddle 930: 926: 922: 921: 920: 919: 918: 917: 916: 915: 908: 904: 900: 899:Fiddle Faddle 895: 894: 893: 889: 885: 880: 879: 878: 874: 870: 869:Fiddle Faddle 865: 861: 860: 859: 858: 854: 850: 843: 840: 837: 834: 831: 828: 824: 822: 819: 816: 813: 809: 808: 807: 796: 792: 788: 787:Fiddle Faddle 783: 779: 778: 777: 776: 775: 774: 773: 772: 765: 761: 757: 752: 751: 750: 746: 742: 741:Fiddle Faddle 737: 732: 729: 726: 725: 723: 719: 718: 717: 716: 713: 709: 705: 701: 697: 692: 687: 683: 678: 677: 676: 675: 671: 667: 666:Fiddle Faddle 660: 659: 655: 650: 649: 646: 642: 641:contributions 638: 634: 633:Lord Sjones23 629: 628: 623: 614: 610: 606: 605:Fiddle Faddle 602: 601: 600: 596: 592: 588: 584: 583: 582: 581: 577: 573: 572:Fiddle Faddle 558: 554: 550: 546: 545: 544: 543: 540: 536: 532: 528: 527: 526: 523: 519: 515: 511: 507: 497:Seung-Hui Cho 494: 493: 490: 482: 476: 471: 470: 466: 462: 461:Fiddle Faddle 457: 455: 445: 444: 440: 436: 435:Fiddle Faddle 423: 419: 415: 414:188.223.62.45 411: 405: 402: 401: 400: 399: 395: 391: 372: 368: 364: 363:188.223.62.45 360: 359: 358: 357: 356: 355: 354: 353: 352: 351: 350: 349: 338: 334: 330: 325: 324: 323: 322: 321: 320: 319: 318: 317: 316: 307: 303: 299: 298:188.223.62.45 295: 294: 293: 292: 291: 290: 289: 288: 284: 283:Victimization 281: 278: 275: 272: 269: 266: 263: 260: 257: 254: 251: 248: 245: 242: 239: 236: 233: 230: 227: 223: 220: 217: 214: 211: 208: 205: 202: 199: 196: 193: 190: 187: 184: 183: 174:individually. 172: 171: 170: 169: 168: 167: 166: 165: 158: 154: 150: 145: 144: 143: 142: 141: 140: 131: 127: 126: 125: 124: 123: 122: 117: 113: 109: 108:188.223.62.45 106: 102: 101: 100: 99: 96: 92: 88: 83: 82: 81: 78: 75: 62: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 4167: 4105: 4101: 4079: 4070: 4030: 4021:Technical 13 4017: 4006: 3990:Technical 13 3948:Technical 13 3916: 3682: 3678: 3674: 3671: 3660: 3646: 3603:this version 3586: 3497: 3486:Scapegoating 3379: 3359: 3348: 3307: 3272: 3266: 3238:— Preceding 3233: 3205: 3199: 3173: 3153: 3148: 3125: 3121: 3119: 3031:scapegoating 3030: 3026: 3007: 3006: 3000:except these 2995: 2994: 2952: 2951: 2907: 2906: 2899: 2879: 2852: 2808:Technical 13 2803: 2763: 2736: 2730: 2724: 2721: 2658: 2586:Technical 13 2541: 2527: 2518: 2447: 2423: 2394: 2388: 2382: 2376: 2370: 2364: 2358: 2348: 2327:Technical 13 2294:Technical 13 2270: 2231:Technical 13 2196: 2138:Technical 13 2129: 2091: 2077:Technical 13 2039: 1978: 1936:navigational 1935: 1863: 1862: 1847: 1802: 1801: 1786: 1760: 1759: 1755: 1729: 1728: 1696: 1671:Technical 13 1638:Technical 13 1603:Technical 13 1591: 1590: 1570: 1561: 1560: 1540: 1520: 1518: 1516: 1477: 1450: 1446: 1390: 1350: 1319: 1315: 1307: 1303: 1286: 1278: 1266:Technical 13 1240: 1214: 1044:Technical 13 1039: 987: 947: 846: 805: 681: 661: 653: 568: 504:— Preceding 500: 472: 458: 451: 432: 385: 282: 276: 270: 264: 258: 253:Scapegoating 252: 246: 240: 234: 228: 221: 215: 209: 203: 197: 191: 185: 130:verbal abuse 79: 76: 73: 60: 43: 37: 4082:. The end. 3492:Self-esteem 3453:Psychopathy 3362:these diffs 2822:User:Penbat 2374:protections 2185:psychopathy 2151:templates. 1438:WP:COATRACK 1311:multiplied. 1023:instead of 836:Provocation 827:Bludgeoning 452:One editor 408:—Preceding 259:Self-Esteem 241:Psychopathy 36:This is an 3423:Narcissism 3386:weaknesses 2386:page moves 2308:Jeff Weise 2273:Jeff Weise 2123:Don't you 1854:Depression 1850:Sycophancy 1797:Defamation 1789:Ad hominem 1752:Repetition 1706:Bystanders 1480:Defamation 1474:Defamation 1343:Ad hominem 1320:Ad hominem 1236:Defamation 1221:Ad hominem 1160:User:Bbb23 1127:Depression 1123:Sycophancy 1111:Defamation 1099:Ad hominem 1040:my opinion 863:somewhere. 818:Bystanders 691:Ad hominem 475:User:PM800 454:User:PM800 210:Narcissism 4080:important 3855:ownership 3781:Montanabw 3741:Montanabw 3717:Saltybone 3244:Saltybone 3204:Cautious 2738:Callanecc 2380:deletions 2345:Follow-up 2132:term of " 1164:User:Ched 847:Discuss. 549:MarsRover 473:Note: if 265:Sycophany 61:Archive 1 4138:Cold War 4011:Sjones23 3684:Scott P. 3435:bullying 3381:Bullying 3252:contribs 3240:unsigned 3008:Keithbob 2953:Keithbob 2908:Keithbob 2747:contribs 2599:Penbat. 2545:contribs 2531:contribs 2362:contribs 1736:removal. 1709:Betrayal 1633:Bullying 956:Bullying 952:Betrayal 948:Betrayal 925:Bullying 842:Ridicule 839:Put-down 821:Betrayal 700:Bullying 696:Bullying 587:bullying 518:contribs 506:unsigned 410:unsigned 4029:quoted 3920:Georgia 3796:WT:BASC 3425:- The 3392:Anxiety 3311:Georgia 3276:Georgia 3206:support 3174:Neutral 3154:Neutral 2996:COMMENT 2900:Comment 2880:Neutral 2853:Neutral 2535:Fladrif 2313:Fladrif 2278:Fladrif 2214:Fladrif 2181:anxiety 2153:Fladrif 2130:current 2111:Fladrif 2096:Fladrif 1997:Fladrif 1965:Fladrif 1871:Fladrif 1828:Fladrif 1810:Fladrif 1769:Fladrif 1738:Fladrif 1618:Fladrif 1527:Fladrif 1456:Fladrif 1440:of the 1409:Fladrif 1369:Fladrif 1355:Fladrif 1135:Fladrif 1115:Control 884:Fladrif 849:Fladrif 756:Fladrif 704:Fladrif 510:Dnclark 488:Windows 247:Rankism 39:archive 4148:Faddle 4143:Fiddle 4031:policy 4025:, the 3972:Faddle 3967:Fiddle 3884:Faddle 3879:Fiddle 3844:Faddle 3839:Fiddle 3619:Drmies 3587:navbox 3573:Penbat 3540:Penbat 3500:Penbat 3433:. The 3293:Risker 3220:Faddle 3215:Fiddle 3165:Faddle 3160:Fiddle 3136:Faddle 3131:Fiddle 3102:Faddle 3097:Fiddle 3059:Faddle 3054:Fiddle 3048:point. 2891:Faddle 2886:Fiddle 2857:WP:BAN 2766:before 2659:before 2649:Faddle 2644:Fiddle 2521:Penbat 2481:Faddle 2476:Fiddle 2392:rights 2368:blocks 1767:freak" 1484:Drmies 1393:Drmies 1289:Drmies 1028:Navbox 1007:WP:MOS 591:Penbat 531:Penbat 480:Fences 390:Penbat 329:Penbat 327:you.-- 149:Penbat 87:Penbat 3917:Sandy 3376:Anger 3370:Abuse 3308:Sandy 3273:Sandy 3027:Reply 2770:after 2267:Weise 1979:broad 1523:order 1521:right 1351:where 484:& 16:< 4175:talk 4115:talk 4088:talk 4060:talk 4040:talk 3994:talk 3952:talk 3925:Talk 3899:talk 3863:talk 3804:talk 3760:lute 3757:Reso 3721:talk 3703:talk 3688:talk 3623:talk 3594:lute 3591:Reso 3577:talk 3558:lute 3555:Reso 3544:talk 3519:lute 3516:Reso 3504:talk 3455:The 3330:talk 3316:Talk 3297:talk 3281:Talk 3248:talk 3182:talk 3124:and 3073:talk 3015:Talk 2976:talk 2960:Talk 2945:this 2931:talk 2915:Talk 2865:talk 2838:talk 2812:talk 2796:lute 2793:Reso 2791:No. 2778:talk 2768:and 2751:logs 2743:talk 2690:talk 2668:talk 2620:talk 2605:talk 2590:talk 2576:lute 2573:Reso 2557:talk 2539:talk 2525:talk 2499:talk 2459:talk 2431:talk 2412:talk 2356:talk 2351:Ched 2331:talk 2317:talk 2298:talk 2282:talk 2249:talk 2235:talk 2218:talk 2205:lute 2202:Reso 2197:that 2183:and 2157:talk 2142:talk 2115:talk 2100:talk 2081:talk 2048:talk 2001:talk 1987:talk 1969:talk 1951:lute 1948:Reso 1921:talk 1899:talk 1875:talk 1856:and 1832:talk 1814:talk 1795:and 1791:and 1773:talk 1742:talk 1720:talk 1675:talk 1657:talk 1642:talk 1622:talk 1607:talk 1582:talk 1552:talk 1531:talk 1503:talk 1488:talk 1460:talk 1428:talk 1413:talk 1397:talk 1373:talk 1359:talk 1329:talk 1293:talk 1270:talk 1262:here 1258:here 1247:talk 1199:talk 1172:talk 1162:and 1139:talk 1077:talk 1048:talk 964:talk 938:talk 903:talk 888:talk 873:talk 853:talk 833:Jibe 791:talk 760:talk 745:talk 708:talk 684:See 670:talk 637:talk 609:talk 595:talk 576:talk 553:talk 535:talk 514:talk 465:talk 439:talk 418:talk 394:talk 367:talk 333:talk 302:talk 204:Envy 153:talk 112:talk 91:talk 4106:two 4102:and 2398:RfA 2092:not 1447:not 988:you 4181:) 4177:- 4117:) 4094:) 4090:- 4071:is 4062:) 4054:. 4042:) 3996:) 3954:) 3927:) 3905:) 3901:- 3869:) 3865:- 3810:) 3806:- 3723:) 3709:) 3705:- 3690:) 3625:) 3579:) 3571:-- 3546:) 3538:-- 3506:) 3498:-- 3388:." 3336:) 3332:- 3318:) 3299:) 3283:) 3254:) 3250:• 3188:) 3184:- 3079:) 3075:- 3018:• 3012:• 3004:— 2982:) 2978:- 2963:• 2957:• 2949:— 2937:) 2933:- 2918:• 2912:• 2904:— 2871:) 2867:- 2844:) 2840:- 2814:) 2804:No 2784:) 2780:- 2772:) 2753:) 2749:• 2745:• 2692:) 2684:. 2674:) 2670:- 2622:) 2607:) 2592:) 2563:) 2559:- 2505:) 2501:- 2465:) 2461:- 2437:) 2433:- 2418:) 2414:- 2406:. 2333:) 2319:) 2300:) 2284:) 2251:) 2237:) 2220:) 2159:) 2144:) 2117:) 2102:) 2083:) 2050:) 2003:) 1989:) 1971:) 1923:) 1901:) 1877:) 1852:, 1834:) 1816:) 1775:) 1744:) 1722:) 1677:) 1669:. 1659:) 1644:) 1624:) 1609:) 1601:. 1584:) 1554:) 1533:) 1505:) 1490:) 1462:) 1430:) 1415:) 1399:) 1375:) 1361:) 1331:) 1295:) 1272:) 1249:) 1201:) 1178:) 1174:- 1141:) 1079:) 1050:) 1031:}} 1025:{{ 1021:}} 1015:{{ 966:) 940:) 905:) 890:) 875:) 855:) 793:) 762:) 747:) 710:) 672:) 643:) 639:- 611:) 597:) 578:) 555:) 537:) 520:) 516:• 467:) 441:) 420:) 396:) 369:) 335:) 304:) 155:) 114:) 93:) 4173:( 4113:( 4086:( 4058:( 4038:( 4023:: 4019:@ 4013:: 4009:@ 3992:( 3950:( 3923:( 3897:( 3861:( 3802:( 3719:( 3701:( 3686:( 3621:( 3575:( 3542:( 3502:( 3328:( 3314:( 3295:( 3279:( 3246:( 3180:( 3071:( 2974:( 2929:( 2863:( 2836:( 2810:( 2776:( 2741:( 2688:( 2666:( 2618:( 2603:( 2588:( 2555:( 2542:· 2537:( 2528:· 2523:( 2497:( 2457:( 2429:( 2410:( 2400:) 2395:· 2389:· 2383:· 2377:· 2371:· 2365:· 2359:· 2354:( 2329:( 2315:( 2296:( 2280:( 2247:( 2233:( 2216:( 2191:/ 2155:( 2140:( 2113:( 2098:( 2079:( 2046:( 1999:( 1985:( 1967:( 1919:( 1897:( 1873:( 1830:( 1812:( 1771:( 1740:( 1718:( 1673:( 1655:( 1640:( 1620:( 1605:( 1580:( 1550:( 1529:( 1501:( 1486:( 1458:( 1426:( 1411:( 1395:( 1371:( 1357:( 1327:( 1291:( 1268:( 1245:( 1197:( 1170:( 1137:( 1075:( 1065:. 1046:( 962:( 936:( 901:( 886:( 871:( 851:( 789:( 758:( 743:( 706:( 668:( 635:( 607:( 593:( 574:( 551:( 533:( 512:( 463:( 437:( 416:( 392:( 365:( 331:( 300:( 151:( 110:( 89:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index