The person you were dealing with is the same one as earlier this year. It took me about 15 seconds to figure that out, so that should be an indication about how obvious he is in announcing he's back. I have the same advice for you as I did then: don't put personal comments in the edit summaries and don't bother talking to him, which includes quoting things he said.
He came back under a new IP address a half day after I left you this message. Stop holding conversations in the Edit Summary. You are helping him by doing so. People like this know they're committing vandalism and attempting to change their mind won't work. Even if there was a chance they would, you hold that conversation on their User Talk page or their Message wall, not in the Edit Summary.
RRabbit42 wrote:
He came back under a new IP address a half day after I left you this message. Stop holding conversations in the Edit Summary. You are helping him by doing so. People like this know they're committing vandalism and attempting to change their mind won't work. Even if there was a chance they would, you hold that conversation on their User Talk page or their Message wall, not in the Edit Summary.
"He came back under a new IP address a half day after I left you this message.": What does that have to do with me? "Stop holding conversations in the Edit Summary. You are helping him by doing so.": Sorry. That was not my intention. "People like this know they're committing vandalism and attempting to change their mind won't work. Even if there was a chance they would, you hold that conversation on their User Talk page or their Message wall, not in the Edit Summary.": I did do so when he started vandalizing my profile page.
Edit summaries should be used to describe what was changed on the page. When dealing with an edit that was vandalism, keep it simple, such as "vandalism" or "reverting vandalism". They really shouldn't be used to hold a conversation.
By holding a conversation in the edit summaries, you were encouraging the vandal to keep going and giving them the attention they were looking for. The less you say to them and the fewer personal comments you make, the less they get out of it and the faster it stops being fun for them.
In this case, both of the anonymous editors you were talking to are likely the same person I've dealt with for over two years now. He's a nuisance, but nothing I can't handle.
Sorry about that. I was trying to reason with him/her (editor's gender is not apparent) at first and then trying to outsmart him/her. Sorry once again.
It's all right. I used to do that, too. It took me a while to realize that's what vandals and trolls want, so now any time I communicate with them, it's usually in an official capacity and I can recognize when it's time to stop talking to them a bit sooner.
RRabbit42 is just too weak to confirm that as "trolling' I bet he will delete this for either it being 'trolling' or for 'being disruptive' which I'm not doing because the post isn't being disrupted since it's already posted.
217.115.112.190 wrote:
RRabbit42 is just too weak to confirm that as "trolling' I bet he will delete this for either it being 'trolling' or for 'being disruptive' which I'm not doing because the post isn't being disrupted since it's already posted.
That is the same person. Each time he shows up, I've been able to confirm it's him in at least three ways. Sometimes even more. His newest tactic is that "if you delete this, it proves me right" statement, but that is the only one I will confirm.
Jdogno7, after you indicate you've read this by leaving a reply, I am closing this message since it's served its purpose.