Are there any rules against constantly voting not like others in review queues?
If yes, do the rules apply only to sites where they are enforced by the engine, in the form of review audits*, or are they universal and apply to all sites in the Stack Exchange network, including beta sites where review audits are not available?
* There are different audits, but most of them rely on relatively reliable opinions of others, e.g. if a user votes against closing a question which others closed and heavily downvoted, something is likely wrong, according to the logic of the engine.
Context: I have noticed a user on Stack Overflow in Russian who votes against closing in 85% of cases. Often, he is the only one voting against closing, especially on questions like, "I've downloaded NT 4.0 from torrents, how to compile it?" (quoted in full) He would have likely been review-banned as a "robo-reviewer" already.
However, review audits are disabled on Stack Overflow in Russian, so I reported the behavior in chat, but it caused a heated discussion. Several users expressed their opinion that voting not like others is totally fine, is a form of free speech and must not be suppressed. Furthermore, some users said that rules enforced by the engine are not actually rules and cannot be applied.
So I want to know what official policy on this behavior is, whether the rules can be applied if the engine does not enforce them, and how moderators are expected to act on it, especially on beta sites.