The Board points out that the editing issues were fully public before, and during, the recent elections to the board, and were openly and publicly discussed. Our membership placed their trust in him by electing him as a Trustee. He was then elected unanimously as Chair of the Board. He continues to have the full support of the Board.
Just to be clear; is the board here admitting knowledge of Fae's problematic behaviour prior to the election?
Why was this not investigated or mentioned at that point?
What about the problematic editing history post-election which is what ultimately led to the Arbcom case?
Did the board, as I suggested, consider looking into the copyright allegations - which are clearly of great pertinence to e.g. GLAM & WMUK.
Did the board discuss, and adopt a stance, in relation to how Fae would be able to function when in situations where people were editing Wikipedia (i.e. obviously he cannot participate or assist anyone in doing so).
Unfortunately, although I admire the support you have shown him, I can't help feeling that there is more of a knee jerk gathering of the caravans here, rather than the full, frank independent investigation I suggested.
Tom