"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.