Would you kindly post our mutual agreement on the voluntary shunning (or not) interpretation over to the main thread so that the next mediator will be sure to bring it to a consensus and/or vote in the review?
G3k may not, strictly-speaking, be a "troll," although some may disagree. But as my posts on the subject in this thread show, he was without question abusive, he posted truly disgusting insults, he made unsupported accusations -- and did so continuously -- with the result that his conduct was certainly disruptive. There's not much doubt that he had become a "non-complying poster." I used the warning language: "Don't feed the troll!" because it's the only such language in the agreement. I knew it wasn't entirely appropriate considering his specific forms of misconduct, but I followed the letter of the agreement (in an amazingly but necessarily legalistic and nearly ritualistically exorcism-like fashion). Now I'm free to call him anything I want, limited only by Jim Robinson's rules. No one else has to go along, but whatever I do at this point regarding that poster is within the terms of the agreement.