And a poster must be worthy enough in some way to merit such a mention, it seems. And if so, it seems right.
Most of the short lived trolls/socks don’t get a mention in ATMB. If you want to know what happened, or confirm a suspicion about what happened, you need to PM a mod. They will answer.
Correct. Announcements are for posters who have been around for a while. Short-term trolls don’t get an announcement. If you want to find out details, PM a mod.
Okay, noted.
You need to search under “reason Y”.
Id rather read me some Charlie Wayne than about 90% of real Dopers. 
If you want to figure out what got a troll banned, you can always go through their posting history to see if there is anything obvious.
Nah, check out Mr. Mooo! Only one post yet it brought a tear to my eye.
Not all of us have 120 seconds to burn.
Hey, we have a few trolls here, anti-Semitic ones pretending they aren’t:
And this twerp who believes the deity of the Old Testament has nothing to do with Jesus:
They’re anti-Semites; therefore, they are trolls.
I may be having trouble reading between the lines, because I’m not seeing the anti-Semitism there.
One denies Holocaust-denial; one extols Holocaust-denial; and one denies that the Jews were/are worshiping the “real” God. I think those all qualify as anti-Semitic positions.
I disagree with Monty on a technicality, however. A troll is someone who is posting something that he either doesn’t believe or doesn’t really care about only in order to stir up outraged responses. It is certainly possible that any of these three really believes what he is posting and is really interested in persuading people to his point of view. In that case, not a troll. I don’t think we can be certain either way.
In other words, not every poster with horrible repellant views is by definition a troll. He might be just a troglodyte.
TPTB disagree:
OK, so it doesn’t have to be insincere. That doesn’t really change my point at all. The dichotomy is between posting (sincerely or otherwise) solely to get reactions, or posting (sincerely) presumably in order to present one’s point of view for serious consideration. Just because these posters have odious views doesn’t mean they are posting only or primarily to rile people up.
Of course they may be trolls, usually trolls get more obvious over time as they have to try harder to get the reactions they are looking for. Occasionally they even admit that’s what they’ve been doing. Until they do that, however, it’s a judgment call not a certainty. More to my original point: odious views do not necessarily equal trollery.
OK, that went right over my head. (The original statement, not your explanation.) The first 2 are obvious, the other guy, I’d like to hear him clarify his thoughts.
That all depends on how and where those views are presented. If one is unable to present one’s views in a civil manner, or outside the Pit, one is likely a troll.
How is that any different from the more combative atheists on this board?
(As a Jew myself, I can’t say I feel that offended by what Beren wrote).
He seems to be using self-macramé to reconcile his pacifism with what one finds in old testament accounts, which seem to portray jehovallah as a fairly callous, almost psychopathic bastard. Which is to say, he is trying to make his god work for him, and, in the process, he invalidates the Jewish god. That would categorize Jews as errant, to the extent that one might perceive them as worshippers of a false god (or false version of the correct god) – in some of the more extreme christian denominations, this could add up to devil-worshippers. And if they are devil-worshippers, they are by definition evil and worthy of, well, who knows what.
Atheists, on the other hand, point out all of your random deity’s flaws, in an effort to show that no deity makes sense, rather than trying to conform the deity to one’s requirements (and, when you read the linked post, the irony gushes off it like a wave off the deck).
“jehovallah”?
Yes. To hear Art Clarke tell it, there are only 8,999,999,999 others.