Andre Engels (andreengels@gmail.com) [050218 00:35]:
The Arbcom cannot and should not exclude _advocates_, but it would have good grounds to exclude _advocacy_, because that is hardly if ever NPOV. If someone spends a large part of their Wikipedia time in an area where after repeated attempts they do not seem to be willing and able to write NPOV, I think arbitration could step in to forbid them from editing on that subject. However, such should be judged from the extent to which their POV hinders their NPOV editing, not from the nature of the POV they are editing from. Although it can hardly be avoided that we put the bar higher for people with a more extreme and uncommon POV, this to me means that we should encourage those who manage to pass that higher bar and compliment them. I would be happy to see a neonazi write about the major groups and leaders in their field.
The ARbCom has addressed this precise issue in two recent cases - LaRouche 2 (just closed) and Robert the Bruce (ongoing). Holding and advocating a strong point of view elsewhere is not considered prima facie evidence of POV-pushing on Wikipedia itself - only the edits are that. Of course, if someone is here owing to a call to action on a mailing list, or from a group known for uncompromising evangelism of their position, their edits are likely to be under considerable scruitiny.
But most activists are activists because they want to make the world better; only a minority are sufficiently obsessed with their cause to blithely mess up other things for the cause. So there's no reason to presume they're not comporting themselves properly here unless and until they actually do just that. Indeed, a proper NPOV presentation is probably the best way to get one's point into Wikipedia.
That said, Wikipedia may be tolerant but we're not stupid.
- d.