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.)