The term "Violence" for example is defined by the WHO as follows re:
wiki
"...Less conventional definitions are also used, such as the World Health Organization's definition of violence as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation."
So perhaps we are both correct?
No, you're not both correct.
My perspective ( as per WHO)
One of the main intentions of the person projecting the Ad Hom (false accusations, insult, discrediting,etc) is to inflict psychological harm thus can be considered as violent in nature.
An ad hominem is simply the intent to argue against the person rather than the substance of the point they make.
The ad hominem is neutral with regards inflicting violence (as in psychological harm), just as a lead pipe, or a hammer is neutral with regard inflicting physical harm.
I.e. whether it inflicts harm or not is dependent upon the way it is used, not the fact of what it is.
And in my experience its use for the intentional inflicting of harm, psychological or otherwise, is rare.
And no, I don't call simple name-calling to be the inflicting of psychological harm, just as I don't consider a paper-cut to be serious trauma.
Thoughts:
An internet troll will often use ad hom to further their cause.
The false accusation of Trolling is also an Ad Hom.
Trolls will do as trolls will do.
Any fallacious argument will do, or no argument at all.
But the accusation of trolling is not necessarily an Ad Hom: it depends on the purpose behind the accusation.
If it is to avoid points made by the person, as in "you're a troll and as such I don't have to listen to your points on the matter", then yes, this accusation would be an ad hominem fallacy.
If, however, the accusation is pertinent to the discussion, or to the health of the overall discussion, then it is not an ad hominem.
For example, if someone continually raises the same point, a point that has been already been dealt with, and the discussion is at risk of deteriorating as a result, the accusation is not an ad hominem, even though it is not directly to do with the subject matter.
I.e. the accusation is not an attempt to avoid dealing with the point, as the point has already been dealt with.
In this case it is simply an accusation aside from the main subject matter, in an attempt to deal with something/someone that may drag the discussion down.
Similarly, if someone refuses to answer any question put to them, the accusation of being a troll levelled at them would not be an adhominem as, again, it would not be an attempt to avoid responding to points raised.
In almost all cases I have seen, the accusation of being a troll levelled at someone has not been an ad hominem but rather part of an effort to deal with a disruptive influence on the actual discussion.
If you wish to provide an example from real discussion where you think it is a case of being an ad hominem, please do share, and we can examine.