It seems to me, to use a Christian metaphor, that you cast the first stone.  Basically my attitude here is that it is not only good men who should be identified as Christians.  If someone self-identifies as a train enthusiast that is good enough for me.  If there is a Wikipedia category for train enthusiasts then he should be included.  The category is for "train enthusiasts" not "good train enthusiasts".  We have no need to examine the purity of his enthusiasm.   

Besides, you are on a slippery slope.  In one Western democracy yesterday it was announced that more than 180,000 abortions happened last year.  That country is run by one who identifies himself very publicly as a Christian.  But he never speaks out against abortion.  He also took his country to war on false pretenses (he deliberately told lies) and in that war 20,000 innocent civilians have died who would not have died if there had been no war.  Using your argument Tony Blair cannot be identified as a Christian.   

But I do not want to use your argument.  Nor do I think we should.  (But even if we use your argument we cannot see into Tariq Aziz's soul.)  That you (presumably another Christian) re-act with distaste that Aziz belongs to the same club is not the point.  Create a category for "saintly christians" is a possibility (although it would be horribly POV) and maybe you should exclude Azis from that category.