That's a question of semantics. When you have a policy on not taking a stand on any issue which you stick to, you are not taking a stand.
When Wikipedia blocks an IP address for abusive behavior they are taking a stance in defense of their goals which are to provide a high quality, free, open, and unbiased repository of knowledge.
That seems fairly pointless. By that reasoning it's impossible to not take a stand, and then the whole notion of neutrality nearly becomes meaningless. But fine, let's say Wikipedia is taking a stand, what is it for? That stance is for neutrality--i.e., not taking further political actions on behalf of one political camp or another. Your comments would be better if they actually addressed the issues raised and not divert us on this path. (Edit: to spell it out, the issue raised in point a) is whether a stance for neutrality is good/bad for Wikipedia. One argument that it's good is it helps Wikipedia be a trusted source.)