Regarding witness vote, in fact I was revenged by some of the witness whales because I publicly discovered their similar voting patterns (See block 5178553, 2016-09-22 01:29). The backlashes happened a day after within a ten minute by three of them (See block 5230964, 5230995, 5231092).
This is sad that discovering potential harmful activities is considered as a potential harmful behavior for the platform. IMHO, these witnesses first have to stop this kind of negative activities not to make any unnecessary debates in the future.
You disagreeing with how stakeholders vote does not make their votes harmful, and you have no objective basis beyond that for claiming that it does. "Similar voting patterns" is not evidence of anything harmful. As a stakeholder I'm entitled to decide that my votes will be cast in a manner similar to another user, whether that other user happens to be @curie or someone else. You repeatedly posting about it and insinuating that people voting in a manner different than what you think is best makes it "potential harmful behavior" is harmful behavior.
"potential harmful behavior" here does not mean the similar voting pattern, but the actions I mentioned above.
About your comments, anyone can decide to follow other accounts. But if the one is a big stakeholder and has significant influences in reward distribution, his/her "lazy curation" can end up with over-valued rewards in few authors as well as under-valued rewards the rest of the others, which is not desirable for the platform.
My point is exactly what @smooth stated above. I have seen a lot of same discussion about valuation reward. Again, over or under is just your personal opinion. I personally find some posts on trending are over-valued, I just don't upvote it anymore, simple. In a social network, you can't forbid anyone to like or dislike your post, exactly like in real world. Even if you don't like it, just don't bring that negativity out.
"Over-valued" or "under-valued' is nothing more than your opinion. Posting hostile trolling posts pushing your agenda on it is harmful by creating a negative tone on the platform.
It is not any one particular issue, it is that nearly every post or comment from you pushes a negative agenda, of "greedy", "supicious", "harmful" actions or some other accusation or innuendo generally supported on nothing but your own opinion.
This divisive tone and focus does not add new value to the platform, is entirely the wrong way forward for Steem/it, and my votes will reflect that.
My terminology can be wrongly chosen since I am not a native speaker. But it should not be neglected why these actions happened.
@clayop, according to your finding about "suspicious activity", you really should read @jesta's report about that (last part): https://steemit.com/witness-category/@jesta/jesta-witness-update-2016-09-30