On a Stack Exchange community I moderate, we have received some complaints about what appears to be targeted voting. Targeted voting is where somebody goes through another user's posts voting for (or against) everything just because it came from that person. This distorts the voting on a site and is strictly against SE rules.
Sometimes, though, users who are following the rules can produce the appearance of targeted voting. This is because we all choose what to read (there's too much to read everything), and sometimes we choose to read something because of who posted it: "Oh look, a post from (known expert); I'm bound to learn something!" Or, alternatively, "sigh, what is (known low-quality poster) posting now?" Having read it we then vote. The vote is legitimate, but to the recipient it looks suspicious. Then people get agitated, complain publicly, leave hostile comments, and ask moderators to do something about that guy.
What social techniques can I employ to break this cycle when it happens on my site? I've tried talking with individuals involved in these kinds of disputes and asking them to be more careful, but I can't very well tell them what (not) to read or to distort their voting -- declining to cast a vote solely because of the author is as bad as casting one for that reason. What I'd really like to do is to help people read more broadly, which will naturally spread their votes out more.
Again, I'm talking about cases that do not violate SE's voting rules; there's nothing to be invalidated and no disciplinary action to take. I don't think the users in question are seeking out particular people's posts to vote on; I think some users are "attuned" to certain other users and are more likely to pick out their posts to read in the first place. How do I broaden people's reading?