Giving equal validity doesn't necessarily imply neutral inclinations. Validity/weight bestowed on certain arguments should be in right proportion to their credibility as determined by the coverage in reliable sources. A priori conjectures that inveigles, or rather, goads a person to give more weight to an argument than it really deserves, are malicious and this sort of sanctimonious display of premeditated even-handedness is useless and, in and of itself, an extremely elusive bias. One shouldn't make a virtue of the floundering based on a tacit inability to admit contentious reality.

Neutrality

To be neutral is toassign weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. It prescribes, as opposed to proscribing, the inclusion of anyverifiable assertions even though it maylook horrendous to some. Calling a spade a spade is not bias in itself.

Some still hold to the vacuous concept that neutrality inherently obligates one to pussyfoot around and sugar-coat horrendous reality as reported by the reliable sources. I humbly but firmly disagree. Forthright explication of the subject in a dispassionate tone is a precondition forneutrality.^[1]

Motives

(In descending order with regards to their frequency of occurrence)

1. An utterly misguided understanding of the idea of neutrality. Prejudicial and idiosyncratic rejection of the distinction between act of blindly giving equal validity and act of being neutral while reporting controversial things.

   Applies mostly to those who presuppose that contentions ofboth the sides ofany dispute, no matter how serious, are equally worthless. While it's notimpossible, renouncing the reflexive temptation to include petty squabbles into the purview of the definition of "serious dispute", I believe such a scenario is extremely rare on Wikipedia.

2. To ostentatiously prove the depth of one's neutrality to oneself (esp. to his own self).

   This is sometimes the motive of those who, by virtue of incoherent qualms, mistake needless generosity for neutrality. Make no mistake, this peccadillo can lead to things that are antithetical to project itself.

3. Ornery one-upmanship.

   This sometimes seems to be the motive of those (esp. incident admins) who unscrupulously misconstrue pragmatic candour as bias and eventually turn the discussion into a war of nerves.

4. and last but not the least is flat-out bias.

• Positive tone
• Understand bias
• Cherrypicking
• Criticism
• Procedural flaws of Consensus-building measures