First off there is the "Statement regarding Ashley Van Haeften, Chair of Wikimedia UK" issued on July 26 2012. This statement can be found at https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/private/wikimediauk-l/2012-July/008732.html though you may have to subscribe to look at archives I am not sure. I reads in part
The Board is united in the view that this decision does not affect his role as a Trustee of the charity. His work at Wikimedia UK has always been enthusiastic and diligent. In particular, his knowledge of charity governance, and his ability to bring about consensus at WMUK's board meetings, have been particularly valuable.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.
Thus the Wikimedia UK, a registered charity of the United Kingdom whose members appear before Parliament at times, not only knew about Van Haeften's doings on the Wikipedia as the arbitration case was going on, they are also peachykeen with how it turned out. They do not care that their chair is a bondage fetishist, pornographer, liar, deceiver, and serial copyright violator.
Second there is a part of the wikipedia empire called "the Commons", to be found at http://http://commons.wikimedia.org
The Commons is a repository of freely uploaded and licensed photos and videos, and has been a frequent target of Mr. Larry Sanger's wikipedia criticism. Some of it is very nice pictures of art, landscapes and so on, but the problem is i nthe not so nice part; the porn. Hundreds and thousands and tens of thousands of hardcore porn, much of it unfiltered by public schools and libraries since the wikipedia project bills itself as suitable for children. Mr. Van Haeften is not only a frequent uploader of pornography and lez-bi-gay themes imagery there but is also an administrator of the site, meaning he gets to make decisions about what is kept and what is deleted. Placing a pornographer in charge of a website billed as safe for kids is like hiring a pedophile for your children's birthday party.
There are sane parts of the wiki-land, such as the arbitrator committee that booted him, but there are many other safe landing spots for Van Haeften to take refuge in.
A ping to others who have posted about wikipedia issues in the past, you may be interested in this.
Van Haeften’s promotion of gay pornography, theft of intellectual property and use of multiple fake identities is par for the course on Wikipedia, including members of the Arbitration Committee. Perhaps this is best viewed as an internal split between extremists over how far to push it and how fast.