It's certainly not what the people you were
talking to there were
arguing, they were quite specific. (And I'm not sure sure thats what
anyone is arguing, I'm pretty confident that compromising neutrality
is a decidedly minority view).
I'll use the nomination in the Stefano AFD as an example (I
specifically said I was talking about this case). It includes the
sentence:
"If real people are negatively affected, we do the right thing, and
stop hurting them."
That's an absolute statement that we mustn't do harm and doesn't even
try and take into account whether the harm is justified. (I know
that's just one sentence, but even in context, I think that's how it
was intended.)