The destructive and destabilizing force of an abusive, possibly sexually, actor in a community, especially in an authority position has historically proven to be far more harmful to communities than whatever objective work they contribute. Bad actors engender the long term viability of a movement.
I'm curious how he was 'invaluable' if the accusations of plagiarism are true. Other people are responsible for his contributions, in that case.
The technically incompetent but socially competent taking credit away from where it is due ought to be a well understood phenomenon here at HN. Why give him a pass if this is the case as well?