https://archive.is/Ci6gj
Fæ has added clarifications and strike-throughs. Page content now is as follows (on Wikipedia, the sections coloured blue have strike-through applied to them):
Statement by Fæ
I welcome Arbcom shining some light in public on this case. The impact has been publicly damaging, and continues to damage Wikimedia projects as the press run with this story.
Chase appears to have been driving the investigation in cooperation with the newspaper while the story was being prepared even if information was not directly cut&paste (as appears to have been stated by himself on the sockpuppet investigation with "[The Guardian] did point out the likelihood of sockpuppetry and explained the connections between the various characters, which is a lot of work - thankyou!"). I note that a second Wikimedia employee used their personal Wikipedia account to protect the article on 21 April. Chase's investigation is entirely likely to have been done with the support of other employees of Wikimedia UK as part of their "communications" activities, indeed The Guardian has used a public statement from "a spokesperson from Wikimedia UK", which Chase must have been part of preparing.[5] The UK chapter has a long and open history of working with newspaper contacts on secret Wikipedia investigations as part of increasing the charity's media profile.
During my tenure as an elected trustee on the board of Wikimedia UK, I was advised by employees (including Chase) that they were running "black ops" investigations. This included employees having anonymous accounts on Wikipediocracy in order to glean information from non-public threads. If this is still going on, and relies (or has relied) on checkuser information, or information from OTRS accounts, then it is about time these secrecy games came to an end, and employees advised to stick to open and accountable working using "WMUK" accounts, or those involved advised to make open declarations about their anonymous activities.
I suggest that Arbcom contact D'Arcy Myers, the current interim Wikimedia UK CEO,[6] at the commencement of this case, for an official statement with regards to what Wikipedia investigations are being run covertly, with the support or facilities of the charity even if on a "tacit" basis. Other employees involved in any way, should be invited to make a public statement and expect to be a party to this case.
For what I hope are obvious reasons, I urge Arbcom members who are personal friends with Chase (himself a past member of Arbcom) to recuse. --Fæ (talk) 09:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Note, based on Worm That Turned's threat to block me because of language,[7] I have struck some superfluous words above. I will be happy to strike further if he thinks it is needed. --Fæ (talk) 12:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
@Worm That Turned: I have said nothing here about employees "own gain", so there has been no "extraordinary accusation", only a statement of fact.
The cases that I knew about where WMUK employees including Chase were involved were being run for entirely virtuous reasons, such as debunking PR manipulation of Wikipedia articles. At the board level we supported the idea that the charity could take a lead in ensuring that the press had factual and appropriate information, rather than repeating gossip. Trusted checkusers and OTRS volunteers were involved, I am sure they can come forward and make statements. I have nowhere claimed that confidential information has been released, but it would be naive to presume that those with access to confidential material like this, who are at the same time working with journalists, are not influenced by the information. Neither Wikipedia, nor the UK charity, have any firm governance rules on how to separate these activities, apart from not actually cut & pasting the material; for example it is common to paraphrase emails from closed email discussions where there was an expectation of confidentiality, such as we see for OTRS.
Thanks for your note that I have "fallen far from grace with WMUK". Neither the Wikimedia UK Head of Communications (who I talked with at the time), nor the CEO will deny the facts stated, though based on past experience they are likely to add some spin. If you believe these are bizarre (and easy to disprove) lies, perhaps you should test them by asking. I could spend time ferreting through emails from when I was a trustee, but I do not want to be responsible for passing on what might be retrospectively claimed to be records of the charity, when there has been no request under the Freedom of Information Act.
I would prefer it if the facts of this case remained the focus, rather than tangential statements about me. I am neither a trusted user nor have any political influence, not just down to allegations from long ago which destroyed my reputation, but mainly thanks to the sustained hounding and public character assassination which a couple of apparently obsessive people attracted to my private life, have been unable to resist over the years since. --Fæ (talk) 11:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I have struck my statement entirely. I shall consider if it is worth the volunteer effort, and the risk of being blocked, for trying to make a statement in this case about what I know to be true, from my time as a charity trustee that are relevant to this case. I was told things as a trustee and the Chairman of Wikimedia UK about activities of the employees for which there will be no hard on-wiki evidence, so verification may boil down to whether the people who have been involved are prepared to make an open and straight-forward statement out of good conscience. --Fæ (talk) 12:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
? 
)