with the primary intent of
This is the part of many definitions and laws that drives me nuts.....people thinking they can divine the intent of others. Heck, sometimes people are not even fully conscious of their own intents! There are lots of unintentional trolls out there who don't even realize they are just being a nuisance to satisfy some inner desire to be a nuisance.
someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages
Irrelevant and off-topic are okay, but seem to be adding more to the definition than is necessary. IMO
I have problems with controversial and inflammatory though. Adding that to the definition will make some people think legitimate postings of controversial topics is trolling. And Inflammatory is simply a matter of opinion.
As such I think its better to skip that part entirely for the definition.
That said I admit everything in there is commonly accepted (which is why I liked the post). I just think what is commonly accepted is rather unrefined.
I prefer to define a troll as someone who simply is posting but not contributing to the discussion or even actually trying learn from it, or making seriously disruptive, false, or crazy posts. Whether this is done through stupidity, conscious intent, complete ignorance of logic or discussion norms, or other, I simply don't care.
For example, if someone described all flat earthers as trolls, I think that's fair. Personally, I think maybe about a quarter are, and do not actually believe the earth is flat but simply get off on being contrarian. Ever argue with one? I recommend you don't except perhaps to confirm what I am saying.