The pro forma statement bout what a chapter is is valuable, but I think many of us kinda got the idea that the problem was not the starting point (otherwise why electing him?) but came later. It's possible that someone else with more community experience would have never behaved such way, but that's speculation.

Statistically, in this scenario this lack of community view probably did not help. Whatever his skills in "management and conflict resolution" were, even assuming they were correctly stated based on previous expertise in other fields, they were not the best ones to handle the conflicts that later emerged. Also, considering the resolution we see now, which is not a great resolution.

The point is that in all these disputes (I think about Brazil few months ago) it looks like the AffCom position sounds like "you are both wrong". Now, this is never a healthy long-term strategy. If it occurs again, it gives more and more the idea that whoever is in the less correct position can hold still because if the matter arrives to the AffCom everybody pays equally. I am sure the situation is more multifaceted, but let's try to grasp the general vibe here.

This is not wise. King Solomon solved the issue bluffing and spotting the real mother, he never actually cut the baby in two halves ... But wisdom comes also with experience.