It's impossible to be neutral. For example even "Israel-Palestine conflict", calling it a conflict is already taking a stance, even if the intention is to make it more neutral. But it implies that both sides are equal in strength, but really it's a genocide with Palestinians doing whatever they can to avoid it.

Wrong opinions need to be challenged as they are harmful, and on the Oct 7 events for example, a neutral stance would require to represent both sides equally, thereby equating them. But there can be no equating in this case; as an example, you would have arguments from Zionists about why they are native to "Israel", why they need to kill "Hamas terrorists", their "bring them home" campaign... and on the Palestinian side, giving it equal representation, you would just need to explain that they don't want to get herded into concentration camps and killed. But presenting these Zionist arguments, which are all lies, is harmful and could still convince some people of these arguments.

And if you push back against the Zionist arguments, are you still being neutral? For example if you would add that despite "Israel" calling to bring the POWs home, they are bombing them... is this still being neutral? Isn't it taking a stance?

It's a fine line and there's no one answer.

You've correctly identified that Wikipedia is far from neutral (they tend to make a lot of pro-war and pro-regime change edits), but they still try to pretend they're objective. On ProleWiki we've decided that we will embrace not being neutral and unbiased, as it's simply impossible to be.