I don't really follow hivewatchers' work much, nor most of the other social media disputes that arise among various users on the chain. If I spent my time on such things, I don't think I would get much else done, because there is always ongoing conflicts between Hive users (this is normal for every form of social media, from what I can tell).
I have a lot of Hive work to do already that it would be difficult for others to do, so I don't see any good reason why I should be the particular person to arbitrate voting disputes just because I'm trying to improve the platform itself. For the most part, I think community members need to work out their issues amongst themselves.
I am not suggesting we get rid of Hivewatchers altogether, but it is clearly in need of reform.
At the end of the day, anyone can run a Hivewatchers type account. It is true it has some DHF funding now, but it operated before that, so it seems obvious that the DHF funding isn't necessary to its existence. I've voted for the DHF proposal just because I think it can provide a useful service and I expect that some funding can improve how it performs.
But if you believe you can make improvements to how Hivewatchers works, then there's a couple of options: 1) engage with Hivewatchers and see if you can get them to accept some of your proposed changes or 2) consider providing a better alternative service and compete with them directly.
I'm not expecting you to arbitrate voting disputes.
I also have many better things to do with my time. :-)
However I've been trying to engage Hivewatchers to reform both privately and publicly for over a year.
The problems keep re-occurring and I see good people leaving Hive because of it.