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.
I do however very much agree with Nakatu X that because a warning is up from one complying poster, it should not be taken as "must conform" by others. Each person will have a different way of valuing an offense and the sum of shunning speaks to the consensus.
With regard to the case at hand, I had already previously decided not to engage as the best method to achieve peace at this time under these circumstances.