If you're talking about the standard of joining gangs to overpower the bias of other gangs, I do not agree to that standard.  The standard I follow is simply to work with other editors to make each article a little better than we found it.  When a gang subverts that process by purposefully making articles worse as punishment or to serve a personal agenda, I tell them how I feel to their face.  Doing so is highly relevant to the article it affects and belongs in the discussion of that article.
I understand the concept of harmonious editing, and I agree with it as a priority second only to making sure that relevant information is not subverted.  Information is not an enemy of an honorable person, but we see influential people here at Wikipedia who do little more than strip pertinent data from articles or delete entire pages of unique and beneficial knowledge.  These people play little games of waffling back and forth between demands for sources and, when they get sources, questions of relevance. (See Talk:State_terrorism for example.)  When their opponent suggests that they are being less than honest in doing so, these people block them for making personal comments.  It's all within the rules of a system where there is no accountability for power, but it is in direct conflict to our humanity and what we know to be right.  I am in the position of having a strict set of personal morals that I have never had to compromise.  I feel that I have a lot to offer Wikipedia, but I'm certainly not going to defile the principles I've honored my entire life to be an editor here.  When I see corruption, I am going to speak up.  What you choose to do, is up to you.