@lukestokes most of the time I would agree with you about go after the voter not the person receiving the vote. In the situation with @haejin it became pretty clear the moment he started getting the huge upvotes he upped his rate of posting.
He can't control (if the whale account isn't his) when a whale gives him a large upvote anymore than he can control when one gives him a large downvote(s).
He can control how much advantage he takes of those votes. For that he needs to answer for his actions. If he doesn't want to reduce how much advantage is being taken, then other whales really should be stepping up unless they agree with what he's doing.
I agree with you! I've posted more than once about how sometimes it makes sense for authors to do decline payout posts if they think they have been taking more of the rewards pool than is justified.
I think your argument goes both ways: if whales blindly upvote someone even when they increase their posting rate, that's still a failure of the upvoter. They should either stop upvoting or adjust the weight of their vote accordingly.
The cryptocurrency markets experienced some intense volatility recently and some may have benefitted from @haejin's increased frequency of posting. I could argue that one in either direction so I didn't get involved. I won't defend him or vilify him just yet. If he wanted to show good faith with the community, he could get the same visibility he wants with decline payout posts. My hunch is, the whales wouldn't vote for him as they'd get no curation rewards on a decline payout.
So again, the whale vote is the problem.