Is there a name for this behaviour type?

[123Bohemian]

Not strictly AIBU but if you have two people who are acquaintances/distant colleague/vaguely socially known to each other but rarely in each others presence BUT a third party persistently tries to stir up trouble between the two parties.

Situation is: Person A is friends with Person B on the dreaded face book. Both have tight friends only controls. Person B is also friends with Person C (but C and A are not friends) C can sometimes read As comments if B has written on As wall, then C screenshots the comments and passes them to D (Who is not on FB) to be read

D then accuses A of 'bullying by proxy' even though A has made no reference to A anywhere at all nor alluded to A. This is a work based situation even though I would imagine this is more common in the playground with the hes said/she said scenario.

Is there a specific name/syndrome/psychological trait for the behaviour of C who seems to want to facilitate ill feeling between A and D, other than 'shit stirrer'?

Thank you for your time

What sort of things are being screen shot/ being said?

Comments on government policies. General news items. Not pertaining to race/religion/imigration etc - nothing particularly shocking.

I'm not totally sure I understand what's going on but I think a and b both need to avoid making any sort of negative reference to work or people at work on Facebook. It is a public forum however good your security might be. In answer to your question it sounds like c and d are feeling concerned about a work issue and feel the fb posts are confirming their feelings.

You mean A Condition?

Nah.

They're probably just a twat.

Most people like that are, rather than having Conditions.

They actually sound paranoid (not in a formal diagnosis way!), low self esteem or jealous.

Yes, the technical name for it is Shit Stirring.

Can't a just block d? Would solve all the problems.

Aren't both C and D complete arses? That is the vernacular, of course.

Sorry, block C.

Oh ok I see they're not talking about work. Leave them to it then - sounds a bit paranoid to me!

Nosy fuckwit?

The blocking has been done, however D has raised a complaint at work against A, using the screenshots provided by C.

Investigation pending. Manager thinks D is over reacting but feels he must operate in a fair and transparent way to all parties concerned.

I thought there may be a particular name for people like C who get their jollies winding up D and A - an enabler?

Person a will have to de friend person b by the looks of it if they want an easy life.

B has also now been defriended, even though they have no part in this.

What did you say in the screenshots?

"Bullying by proxy" by talking about somebody when they aren't there, outside work??? Who hasn't done that?

D needs to get a grip, and the employers should see this trumped up complaint for what it really is. How it annoys me when people seize on any possible slight and decide to seek vengeance by shrieking about being bullied!

'Shit stirring' about covers it. 'Bullying' is another. 'Passive aggressive' could apply... i.e. attacking others in a sly, underhand way rather than being up front about it. If you want something more sciency-sounding you could try 'hierarchical self-esteem' perhaps. People who can only feel good about themselves by making others feel bad.

Me? Nothing whatsoever about work/any colleague/name any person - I was talking about some education reforms and linked to a news article. FYI - Michael Gove is not on my FB

Why do you feel you need one?

That's not meant aggressively but what do you think some sort of professional sounding term will do?

My right to respond - hardly going to be professional if I refer to C as 'a shit stirring muppet' is it? Even if truthful

well, you can find a tactful way of saying that without coming across like you are trying to actually diagnose someone with something.

Sometimes an arse is just an arse.

It sounds like it's going to come to nothing anyway. Just stick to sorry if they felt that my messages to X about Y were actually not about but were coded messages intended to bully them, that is not the case and you feel quite concerned for them that they have chosen to interpret them this way. But, worrying as it is that someone could make such a leap, you did not have current affairs discussions with a third party as a means of bullying them and you find it offensive to be accused of it.

I'm a bit confused about how a fb post with no reference to d could be even suggested to be about her if it's something as generic as a news report. It also surely can't have been aimed at d if there could have been no reasonable expectation she would have read it.

How OLD are these people?! Sounds like they need to grow up!

So what is the actual complaint that D has made?

I would say C is rather under D's thumb, if something that named nobody personally known to any of the 4 of you caused them to go running to D instantly with a screen shot!
D must have something mega against you to go running to the boss about it.
Boss must look to be investigating if nothing was said about anyone you know then it should be dropped with a warning to D about wasting time.
At least she cannot see anything else you write now but watch what you say on the phone as they may have bugged it