I think you're right that there's no principled or well-reasoned stopping point that aligns the behavior with any notion of consistency. But I think for a case like this no further answer is necessary then that people and circumstances and the variables that drive them to be motivated and to lock in on a special case, are sometimes simply idiosyncratic.

So I'm ready to believe it might have only been one. Although it naturally raises the question. You can't imagine they would volunteer data on additional harassment campaigns.