The specific example Robin Laws uses here is really really really really not helpful because it brings in a bunch of side issues.
So don't read this article and respond to the specifics of the example Laws uses.
Experience tells me that blog readers really like to get into the weeds about examples so I'll repeat that:
Don't read this article and respond to the specifics of the example he uses.
Sie nicht diesen Artikel lesen, und er verwendet, um die Besonderheiten des Beispiels reagieren.
Je, si kusoma makala hii na kujibu specifics ya mfano anatumia.
이 기사를 읽고 그가 사용하는 예의 특성에 응답하지 마십시오.
No lea este artículo y responder a las características específicas del ejemplo que utiliza.
Maa ko ka yi article ati ki o dahun si awọn pato ti awọn apẹẹrẹ ti o nlo.
Ne pas lire cet article et répondre aux spécificités de l'exemple qu'il utilise.
Ne olvassa ezt a cikket, és válaszoljon a sajátosságait a példa is használja.
Nie czytaj tego artykułu odpowiedzi do specyfiki przykładzie on używa.
As usual, if you do this in the comments anyway you will be mocked mercilessly.
Got that? Instead let's look at the nut of the issue, which, shorn of the specifics, is a problem any GM might face...
The question is this: What do you do if one PC is about to take an action which will radically change the direction of the game for everyone to one you know for a fact the other players don't want to do?
Laws recommends breaking the fourth wall, which I might also do.
But, speaking through that wall, I wouldn't say what Laws says. Instead I'd say this "You gonna let them do that?".
If Nightcrawler wants to play heroes rescuing kittens from trees instead of outlaw mutants on the run, they need to roll initiative to keep Wolverine from stabbing that crooked cop. Just like in a real X-Men comic.
-the action is taking place where no other PC is around to stop Wolverine from stabbing the cop (and the other players are NOT OK with that)
-Nightcrawler trying to stop Wolverine from stabbing a cop isn't the kind of pvp action the players signed up for
...then the GM has to accept responsibility that they fucked up. They designed (or purchased and robotically carried out) a scenario where Trish's Wolverine act--instead of propelling the game--got in the way of what Lisa and Freckles and Jo-Jo wanted to do. The GM should do better next time.
Trish is at your table to be Trish. You, as a GM, need to know Trish and to create scenarios which utilize Trish's impulses (and Lisa's and Freckles' and Jo-Jo's) to propel it, not make Trish feel "dysfunctional" for doing a thing which creates exactly what so many Indie designers try to get dice to do: make drama.
If you like Trish as a human, you will be able to get Trish into the game, regardless of playstyle. The only reason to boot someone is if they, as a person, suck--and wanting to kill a cop or a bishop or a gnome king does not a sucky person make--even if that isn't something that is going to make the game better that day.