An editor has twice deleted this article, redirecting it, undoing the work of more than a dozen editors, without discussion. It looks like either vandalism. This should not be deleted or redirected absent a consensus at Articles for Deletion. Banks Irk ( talk) 16:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Hi. I had to restore that redirect because of Fladrif ( talk · contribs)'s actions towards Penbat, a longtime contributor, and also that Sycophancy is a more broader psychological topic. In this case, it was not vandalism, but a bold reversion of a blocked user's edits. It was clearly in good faith and characterizing these edits as vandalism is unfortunately considered a personal attack. Please show some respect towards your fellow editors and their efforts. Fladrif, who started this article, has a history of chronically disruptive behavior going way back to 2009 ( [1]), and was also wikihounding Penbat ( talk · contribs) (especially with regards to the subjects Penbat edited, abuse and bullying, as well as on this article,) to the point where he was unable to do any significant editing, and Fladrif was indef-blocked for his actions back in April 2013. He even seemed to side with Star767 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a sockpuppet of a long-term disruptive user on the psychology-related articles. I think all of Fladrif's edits on the abuse articles should be reverted. According to Penbat, Sycophancy (flattery that is very obedient or attentive to an excessive or servile degree) is the psychology concept which is broader and incorporates "sycophant". So, my point is that we should take this up to WP:AFD. I removed it and was trying to help Penbat get rid of Fladrif's edits, but it was reverted twice, once by an IP and once by Banks Irk, a newcomer to Wikipedia. I am planning to take this to AFD to get a consensus. But if it doesn't work, a merge discussion should be taking place

Basically, my point is that Sycophancy is a powerful social psychological academic concept which fully deserves its own Wikipedia page and should be expanded on. As such, we should redirect this back and expand the Sycophancy article. Even if the AFD results in either a keep, we should open up a merge discussion on this matter if anyone is interested. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 17:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC) reply

It seems to me that AfD, though it has gone there, is an imperfect venue, and that it could and should have been considered at Requested Merges. A valid AfD outcome might well be to merge with Sycophancy. Fiddle Faddle 22:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC) reply

If the AFD closes as keep or no consensus or if I withdraw this AFD, I will propose a requested merge. Banks Irk, please don't insult or make assumptions about me. Your speculations are just that, speculations. I'm not vandalizing the article by a long shot. If I did something to hurt you, then I am sorry, it was really not my intention to hurt or upset anyone. Timtrent, I agree that an AFD is not the right venue. I might plan to withdraw this and consider it at requested merge. However, if you take a look at my barnstars as well as the new articles I have created, these will disprove any allegations you may have about me. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 02:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Just write the other article and leave this one alone. They're only tangentially related by a historical accident of etymology. You want to merge soul with soul? It's just a different thing that sounds the same. That happens in languages.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 03:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC) reply

I know. I just want to come up with some ideas. I've already withdrawn the AFD and I think a proposed merge should be a good idea, but if that's the case then, I apologize for my mistake I had made. It was made in good faith. There was a discussion about the merge to Wiktionary a while back. I read the article, but it does not seem right to me. I think that, due to the usage of the term in Modern English, should be merged. But if there are no objections, I propose that we should do a proposed merge. If not, that's fine with me. Okay? Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 03:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC) reply

I agree that sycophancy should not be moved to wiktionary, but that's actually irrelevant to this page, which is only tangentially related to sycophancy as that term is used in English. Why are we having this discussion on the talk page of *this* article?— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 03:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Alf, one of my points in this discussion here is that simply, the word sycophant is not only related to linguistics and classics, but also pertaining to psychology as indicated in a couple of sources that I am trying to find. I can only consider that sycophant and sycophancy could be the same thing as one of these encompasses a more broader psychological standpoint, but I could be wrong. I'll work on this a bit later. I am discussing this so we can come up with a good compromise and build up a consensus among other users. I'm going to discuss a possible merge about it on the other article at Talk:Sycophancy. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 03:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Thanks. Let's hope there are no more misunderstandings. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 04:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC) reply