One key effect of glowniggers is that they stoke general paranoia which undermines future movements.
I may be able to help you, because it is an ongoing problem all political movements face.
Whilst people are instinctively inclined to all out glowniggers this further fuels paranoia and soon everyone will be throwing accusations around and glowniggers will start accusing legitimate figures.
It's not really even about who is and isn't a bad actor, many supporters will be inadvertently dragged in or accidentally act in a destructive fashion.
I would suggest a two pronged approach, dealing with destructive behavior within a movement and identifying "sleepers".
Destructive behavior comes in many forms but really follows well established patterns.
You will get people who do not share a movements primary aims but are still supporters, someone who supports a union may primarily be a communist, someone who supports social conservatism may have a primary interest in hardline Christianity. The best approach is to constantly lead people to the groups primary goal.
Then you will get people who cause internal division and try to make sub-factions and splinter groups, this results in a Judean peoples front Vs. people's front of Judea conflict where people with the same primary goals end up fighting about secondary issues.
The best approach is to channel hostility outwards, supporters will have natural hostility to other movements and having unity AGAINST another group rapidly helps set aside petty internal divisions.
You will get bad actors/idiots who deliberately associate a movement with a toxic cause. This can be hard to deal with because often pointing out that their actions are destructive will be met with hostility and ultimately extremists must be excluded. These people are easy to identify because they will be loud, bring their own logos and symbols, and not listen to reason about the foolishness of overtly spewing toxic rhetoric. At rallies they will bring nazi flags, yell about how women are evil, support ethnic cleansing etc.
Notably anyone who advocated any criminal action- there are serious consequences of allowing this, again "Why would you say that".
The overarching theme is "I get why you might think that- but why would you say that".
Don't attack them on the basis of cause- rather on the basis of strategy.
Then you have the second issue which is of sleepers, the real enemy within.
They will engage in profiling your supporters by trying to collect identifying information like mailing lists and membership numbers.
Attempting to become leaders or more likely gain administrative power withing the movement.
Attempting to represent the group or movement without any kind of authorization or vetting.
Notably they may attempt to create parallel media streams- this must be stopped at all costs.
The solution here is administrative and requires vigilance within the organization.
Vetting members to ensure they have a proven and sustained interest in the movement, having a hierarchy, having a consistent and constructive discipline policy, maintaining official media channels (this is a huge issue now for this very reason)
Ensuring anonymous voices are never repeated by members (again online this is a huge issue)
Ensuring redundancy in valuable material/funds to stop administrators vanishing and setting the group backwards.
Have a succession plan to ensure the movement can recover from the loss of key figures
At this point you may have a number of figures in mind who seem to clearly tick these boxes
MGTOW was very successful in discrediting right wing movements in the past, they got a lot of media coverage and made many movements toxic to women- many young men with personal challenges started pushing women out of conservative movements and were never called to order.
Many anonymous bloggers gained a lot of traction, they had a "brand", were media savvy but never contributed constructively or formed or supported a cohesive movement- many in fact started in-fights and then vanished into thin air.
That Milo guy stands out, with a sudden appearance, huge funding and his own media team, divisive rhetoric and no allegiance to a organization.
