The formula you cite is not the definition of voltage. One definition of voltage, or more precisely, the electrostatic potential difference between two points is
The energy required per unit charge to move a charge from one point to the other
Your formula gives the voltage at points around a single point charge, relative to points at an infinite distance away.
like the source of that voltage on an electron is the electron behind it, so my question is Is that true or no?
No, not really. Remember that in addition to the electrons surrounding the first electron, there are also positive charges associated with protons in the nuclei of the atoms making up the wire.
How something like the voltage drop can be thought of(it doesn't seem like moving in a resistor can have any effect on the equation above)?
Consider an electron in a vacuum tube, with a positive charged plate on one side of it and a negative charged plate on the other. It will be repelled from the positively charged plate and attracted toward the negatively charged plate. As it moves toward the negative plate, it accelerates, as its electrical potential energy is converted into kinetic energy.
Now if the electron were travelling in a resistive material instead of through vacuum, instead of picking up speed as it travels, every few nanometers it would interact with the material around it (crudely, you could say it "bounces off" the atoms in the material, or in a more sophisticated model you could say it interacts with the phonon field of the material), randomizing the electrons velocity and transferring its gains in kinetic energy into thermal vibrations of the material.
Basically the electron in the resistive material can lose electrical potential energy as it travels from a lower potential to a higher one without itself gaining substantial kinetic energy like it would if it were travelling through vacuum.