Let's approach this from a different angle. I'm not advocating for deletion, and currently abstaining from sectionectemy unless there's a tie; but I want to analyse a little bit, why we have had this problem, beyond any one individual.
My argument to Labster from the angle of example sectionectemy, is that Complete Monster is the fact that in affect, we are giving wiki users the ability to subjectively assign morality to characters and in disputes over such, human beings. People disagree about the most basic of things, even who is completely devoid of any good traits. "my son would never do such a thing"
Due to this, politics is completely unavoidable, what if a character is deemed a Complete Monster because the character banned abortions, what if the same but because they allowed abortions in a fictional work? Something that should be supposedly objective, with two completely different subjective views. They have different moralities, and both would serve the other as being a CM, due to the lack of civility around politics, particularly on the internet and particularly where synonyms are used (see Great Internet Fuckwad Theory).
The rules can't be made more strict/objective due to the fact those rules themselves would become the battleground of what is objective/subjective, with again often directly conflicting views on moral topics. Even universally hated things will find some contrarians and otherwise afflicted people to argue their case (see the awful MAPs for an obvious example).
By allowing such, we are effectively allowing us vs them politics on a wiki which has made active rules for staff to avoid it (and has defrocked and has currently banned the guy we're talking about for doing so), and encourages the wiki staff to at least stand back and breathe before they act. Wikipedia pages on modern politics becomes a battleground. Endless debates and bannings and a permanent blight in the reputation of wikis and the operation of them. Red vs Blue, Left vs Right, White vs Black, etc etc.
Even if you just let one person decide the standard by themselves, you're still going to get people who will strive for years against that at all costs, AKA this entire situation which is why we are having this discussion.
My long-winded thesis is thus: human beings aka the "bad crowd" that you are talking about aren't a symptom, they're the root of the problem, and solving that problem would involve solving morality, something none of us will ever accomplish.
My argument to Labster from the angle of example sectionectemy, is that Complete Monster is the fact that in affect, we are giving wiki users the ability to subjectively assign morality to characters and in disputes over such, human beings. People disagree about the most basic of things, even who is completely devoid of any good traits. "my son would never do such a thing"
Due to this, politics is completely unavoidable, what if a character is deemed a Complete Monster because the character banned abortions, what if the same but because they allowed abortions in a fictional work? Something that should be supposedly objective, with two completely different subjective views. They have different moralities, and both would serve the other as being a CM, due to the lack of civility around politics, particularly on the internet and particularly where synonyms are used (see Great Internet Fuckwad Theory).
The rules can't be made more strict/objective due to the fact those rules themselves would become the battleground of what is objective/subjective, with again often directly conflicting views on moral topics. Even universally hated things will find some contrarians and otherwise afflicted people to argue their case (see the awful MAPs for an obvious example).
By allowing such, we are effectively allowing us vs them politics on a wiki which has made active rules for staff to avoid it (and has defrocked and has currently banned the guy we're talking about for doing so), and encourages the wiki staff to at least stand back and breathe before they act. Wikipedia pages on modern politics becomes a battleground. Endless debates and bannings and a permanent blight in the reputation of wikis and the operation of them. Red vs Blue, Left vs Right, White vs Black, etc etc.
Even if you just let one person decide the standard by themselves, you're still going to get people who will strive for years against that at all costs, AKA this entire situation which is why we are having this discussion.
My long-winded thesis is thus: human beings aka the "bad crowd" that you are talking about aren't a symptom, they're the root of the problem, and solving that problem would involve solving morality, something none of us will ever accomplish.