>Isn't that a bit of a tautology? "If I expand the definition of the word 'troll' to include 'authors decrying trolling' then authors who decry trolling become 'trolls' themselves."

No, it's not tautological.

The parent doesn't propose to "expand the definition of the word 'troll' to include 'authors decrying trolling'". He proposes defining trolls as "as anyone who posts inflammatory, bad faith, needlessly aggressive, insulting, false, or otherwise unproductive content".

Which is as (or close) to how it has always been defined, and how the authors of TFA use it.

So what the parent suggests is not some "expansion of the definition of trolling", much less one to include "those who complain about trolling", and in no sense a tautology.