Matt R wrote
I would argue that it is quite sufficient to do what we normally do --
examine
the conduct of each individual editor, his actual edits, and react
accordingly.
Guilt by association makes me very uneasy.
Certainly editors should be judged by what they do, not what they are - as a general rule. Most such general statements do get shot down.
I posit that Wikipedia would be better off with a well-behaved, NPOV-writing Neo-Nazi than
without;
could such an individual exist?
The question is really more like: suppose an editor had far-right views and that the _only way_ that was apparent was a small annoucement on his (male is more usual) user page. Something like 'I belong to [[X]]', where X is an organisation documented in an article that included, uncontested, the usual dreary hate items.
Well, this is a hypothetical. We would more likely get someone saying they were a member of, for example, an anti-immigration lobbying organisation in a country where immigration is a political issue. In this latter case there is fairly clearly a case that we have to go by behaviour, even though statements like, say, 'I vote Le Pen' in the French context, can cause very grave offence.
Charles