Yeah, I'm not buying it, either.
Lord Voll really can't be looked at as an afterthought, an the entire example of Willowill is of a female leader who is a VERY BAD LEADER (and a bad person), so that hardly belongs on the side of an argument in favor of female leaders.
Kahvi is also a somewhat ambiguous case. In the OQ, you can argue that she is presented as simply a strong leader with a very different style than that of the wolfriders. Later, she is presented as a quasi-villain, so it's difficult to assess her legacy.
I really have to disagree with the interpretation that Leetah is seen as just as much a leader of the wolfriders as Cutter is. Pfft, no. The wolfriders respect her a great deal, and they value her for many different qualities, not just for her healing abilities. But I really Cutter stands foremost as the leader of the wolfriders.
Now, where you could make this argument would be in the case of Bearclaw and Joyleaf, and how Joyleaf is looked at as much as a chieftess as Bearclaw is chief.
And of course, there's Ember. Gosh, so many female leaders!
Meanwhile, Olbar has really always been presented in a positive way.
I mean, as Foxeye says above -- clearly, the creators of the world/story like their strong female characters. I think it's also important to recognize that in the times when they started writing, strong female leaders (especially warlike ones) were much harder to find represented in fiction. Giving the Go-Backs a female leader like Kahvi really went against conventional expectations of the time. (I would argue that the character-types represented by Savah and Winnowill were less against-expectation.)
But to say that it amounts to ElfQuest having an anti-male message is silly. "Leader" is not the only positive role that a male character can play, so there are many positive male characters in the world/story. It also ignores the fact that while the creators' tastes (and desires to go against convention) led them to establish a preponderance of female leaders during the main story's time-period, their world's history is not without both positive and negative examples of male leaders, just as some of the female leaders are negative examples rather than positive ones.
For me, what it all boils down to is... I wonder if the person who edited that bit of the Wiki article would equally define stories in which most leaders are males as "anti-female" or misogynist. Or, more likely I believe, whether the person just regards that as "normal", and what is unnatural is all these female leaders.
In fact, I think EQ is pretty balanced in its portrayal. But the key thing for me is it presents a variety of types in both genders. I suppose I might take claims of misandry more seriously, if EQ was not only filled with female leaders, but if there was a strong thread of "males are incapable of being good leaders". That's not the case. EQ doesn't fit either gender into just one category. So it just starts to look like it's someone who thinks "misandry" means saying that more than one token female can fill what are usually regarded as male roles.