Maybe there's a lot of this and I'm not seeing it, but what I do see is a lot of good-faith edits characterized as trolling. The edits may be poor or mistaken, and the person may be very stubborn in their defense of a bad edit, but if they sincerely believe that the edit is making the encyclopedia better, then it's inaccurate to call them trolls. For instance, a rightie who hates WP's leftie-ness can generate a huge ruckus by trying to "balance" what he/she perceives as slanted articles, but every one of those edits is in good faith, and the editor will think of him/herself as just as good and dedicated an editor as anybody else here.
I absolutely agree with you. I find that the term "troll" means pretty much nothing, or it just means "somebody doing something I don't like." Even "vandal" is used by an awful lot of people for things other than "joe is gaaaaaaaaaay" edits, which to me are pretty much the only things I'd call vandalism. And calling someone a troll, or a vandal, or whatever, rarely solves the problem. It would be much more productive to be very specific about what the person is doing, and say "I disagree with the tenacity with which you exclude all but one POV from this article" or "it would really help if you told us why you were reverting all our edits" etc. This is much more likely to result in a resolution.
moink