Marvin has an interest in solving problems (he is author of the book "Effective Problem Solving"). He also has an interest in Buddhism, having recently published "The Positive Psychology of Buddhism and Yoga." A fourth of the latter book is devoted to the topic of handling anger, and it is one of the best writings on that topic, in my opinion.

So, although the toilet stuffing was not directed at Marvin, and Marvin had no reason to become involved, he thought about how he could stop the toilet stuffing. He came up with this solution. The janitor put up a sign in the bathrooms, saying that Marvin had agreed to clean up any mess that was made. The sign added that Marvin was 78 years old and so the toilet-stuffer should think of his grandfather as having to clean up the mess.

For whatever reason, the toilet-stuffing stopped.

Was this satyagraha? Maybe not. There was no interaction with the vandal. Marvin's potential suffering wasn't a natural consequence of the vandal's actions. And a satyagraha usually works slowly.

Maybe this should simply be categorized as a clever solution to a problem. But it has a feel of satyagraha. Marvin was willing to suffer. He was fighting for a moral cause, and I think he tried to lift the conflict to it's highest level of morality. He was not angry at the vandal, or fighting with the vandal, he was trying to help the vandal understand the consequences of his actions. Marvin was, ultimately, fighting with love.

So, maybe this is not satyagraha and should not be on this website. Maybe it is an example of extending the principles of satyagraha to a different situation, and that satyagraha is alive even if people do not call it that.