8 Jun
2026
8 Jun
'26
8:19 a.m.
Hi mopharisthebest & XSF,
as the only woman I am aware of in the XSF, I was not allowed to
participate in drafting the CoC neither in approving it. My messages
were ignored all along. I cannot prove that any more, so it is just a
claim as how I remember it from back then. I do not have the logs any
more. But I was shocked that time since I think a woman should
definitely, as one of the minorities, be allowed to say sth about CoC.
Additionally, I have been banned for ~ half a year (!) of two big MUCs
that time: the kuketz MUC and the angrytux MUC if I remember correctly.
I was not told for what reason I had been banned.
In my opinion, this shows that the CoC procedures can and were misused.
I did not check your case because currently my child is in danger to
life and I am fighting against the authorities to stop further
traumatization and medical neglect, but I wanted to mention these two
severe issued I have had with XMPP etiquette.
https://B12kid.gitlab.io – my child's case.
Greetings from the golden city Prague
eevvoor
On 6/8/26 3:04 PM, Travis Burtrum wrote:
Hi all,
Finally got to talk to Ge0rg last night and, frankly, it's far worse
than I expected.
First I'd like to clarify that my previous emails were based on what I
knew at the time (since the required notification to me wasn't done) and
now I've been informed the mod team did agree on the ban first which is
good.
Second, I know Ge0rg asked for this email thread not to continue, and
before this it did because the reasons for the ban the CoC promises me
were never provided, now that they have been I am continuing it because
all claimed reasons for the ban and the ban itself happened in public in
the XSF channel and it's not right for the person who did the banning to
request secrecy instead of having the full story exposed.
I want to start off by saying I love working with and talking to you all
and never intend any offense or disrespect, but I'm human and intent is
not always so clear, our CoC spells this out better than I ever could
and I really appreciate that. So if you ever see a message from me that
sounds wrong in any way please feel free to message me about it any way
you wish, I'm always trying to improve.
Now since I didn't get Ge0rg's permission to share our full chat log
I'll attempt to quote/paraphrase it as accurately as possible, I'll
provide the full thing to any XSF member that asks, or publicly if Ge0rg
agrees.
So the first stated reason was:
<https://logs.xmpp.org/xsf/2026-06-05#2026-06-05-
c574d13c4aa8a6ec> followed by the warning and your further escalation.
For the life of me I have no idea how anyone could consider this
"inappropriate" in context, which was discussing whether the XSF
actually needed to be a legal entity at all. Later in our convo Ge0rg
called this "mocking Guus" which still seems crazy to me, but just in
case I reached out to Guus and apologized in case he was offended in any
way because that is never my intention, he wasn't.
Then Ge0rg added new reasons:
You alone were pushing the point that the XSF
might not need a legal
entity, which everybody else considered as highly
impractical, to say it
politely.
For me, the initial tipping point was in fact
https://logs.xmpp.org/
xsf/2026-06-05#2026-06-05-8c571dd4a13a4632
<https://logs.xmpp.org/
xsf/2026-06-05#2026-06-05-8c571dd4a13a4632>
The last I suspect everyone else sees as the normal language we all use
in the XSF every day? I still absolutely believe alien invasions are
more likely than anyone being sued over a XEP and think that was
absolutely appropriate allegory, in fact Ge0rg did the same when he
mentioned "bike sheds" a few lines away https://logs.xmpp.org/
xsf/2026-06-05#2026-06-05-fda8acc202234441 <https://logs.xmpp.org/
xsf/2026-06-05#2026-06-05-fda8acc202234441> combined with jokes from
others about chik-fil-a gift cards etc. Ge0rg may have disagreed with
me, I may be (and often am) utterly wrong, but clearly nothing even
approaching violating the CoC. My final impression from our whole
conversation was that Ge0rg seems to be under the impression he is
allowed to police viewpoints in discussions, when the CoC *explicitly*
calls that out as not allowed:
It also is possible for the Code of Conduct to be
weaponised for
exclusionary purposes, by using the complaints mechanism to stall
or
silence valid debate. Both of these are cases where the very existence
of a Code of Conduct could be used for exclusionary purposes, perverting
its very intent. Obviously, don't do either.
Then he added another reason, claiming I had "mocked the CoC back in
march", linking <https://logs.xmpp.org/
xsf/2026-03-14#2026-03-14-8c71f2ca4611c687 <https://logs.xmpp.org/
xsf/2026-03-14#2026-03-14-8c71f2ca4611c687>> which is literally a nearly
direct quote from dozens of well documented cases and studies, eg
<https://www.uclalawreview.org/professionalism-as-a-racial-construct/
<https://www.uclalawreview.org/professionalism-as-a-racial-construct/>>
Then he quoted ban reasons which don't show up in my (most?) clients
*or* the public logs, we both agreed the latter should be fixed.
The first one
00:17:14 -!- moparisthebest
has been banned by Ge0rG Reason: off topic
and trolling. temporary ban
The second: 08:19:15 -!- moparisthebest has been
banned by Ge0rG
Reason: banned by mod team for offensive and disruptive behavior
interesting the ban reason for the same thing changes so much right ?
Clearly and obviously discussing the XSF's legal status in the XSF
channel is not offtopic, nor was there any trolling or offensive or
disruptive behavior. The topic was not started by me and continued after
my ban with no further bans.
The CoC explicitly forbids mods from using it to silence people they
disagree with, it requires both "assume best intent" and warnings, and
suggests contacting the person first. None of these were done, if any
had been I'm confident none of this would have happened. I don't want to
live in a world where messages are taken out of context and assumed to
have worst intent, but if mine are going to be treated that way it's
only fair that everyone's are, for example these:
<https://logs.xmpp.org/xsf/2026-06-05#2026-06-05-5c545c93fa709582
<https://logs.xmpp.org/xsf/2026-06-05#2026-06-05-5c545c93fa709582>>
<https://logs.xmpp.org/xsf/2026-06-05#2026-06-05-11ce8c2ae56c5f91
<https://logs.xmpp.org/xsf/2026-06-05#2026-06-05-11ce8c2ae56c5f91>>
It's also worth noting at least Daniel and 1 other thumbs-up I can't see
who from until after I'm unbanned didn't see a reason for it either
<https://logs.xmpp.org/xsf/2026-06-06#2026-06-06-ee02f783ec8dd7f7
<https://logs.xmpp.org/xsf/2026-06-06#2026-06-06-ee02f783ec8dd7f7>>
So remedy-wise, I'd like to see Ge0rg officially reprimanded for
threatening to abuse his mod powers and then doing it to suppress an
opinion he disagreed with, ignoring his duty to give a reason (then
adding more and more after the fact in an attempt to justify it), and
trying to prevent discussion of you with the members. I suggest a 3 day
ban from xsf@ is appropriate, along with a promise never to do it again
or removal from mod team.
This email was hard to write as it feels like a personal attack on
Ge0rg, who, up to now, I've had only positive interactions with and
impressions of. Looking forward to moving past this and continuing to
improve XMPP.
appreciate it,
moparisthebest
On June 7, 2026 4:23:51 PM EDT, Travis Burtrum <travis(a)burtrum.org> wrote:
Dear fellow members and board,
We are approaching 48 hours post ban and I still haven't been
provided a single reason. In his first email here Ge0rg offered:
We can discuss the specifc details off-list if
you wish
so.
When I had already messaged him kindly asking for an explanation
immediately post-ban, still no response.
So I guess in addition to the previously mentioned things I'm still
owed per the CoC I'd like to officially report the entire conduct
team to the board for violating the CoC, I expect board to meet in
private and come up with an appropriate punishment for them.
Thanks again,
still waiting,
moparisthebest
On June 6, 2026 8:02:36 PM EDT, Travis Burtrum <travis(a)burtrum.org>
wrote:
I want to be crystal clear, the only reason this thread exists
is because the conduct team violated the CoC by not contacting
me and informing me the reason for the ban, if that had been
done I could have either accepted the decision or appealed to
the board.
And I'm still waiting...
On June 6, 2026 7:46:43 PM EDT, Travis Burtrum
<travis(a)burtrum.org> wrote:
There's clearly many misunderstandings here on both sides.
No one has told me why or warned me ever, please link to
explicit messages that violated the CoC with reasons why
from <https://logs.xmpp.org/xsf/2026-06-05 <https://
logs.xmpp.org/xsf/2026-06-05>>t;>, if the mod team discussed
and agreed there were violations this will be easy. The CoC
says they already should have been provided.
It's absolutely possible the conduct team discussed this and
agreed on the ban beforehand, but since no one contacted me
and you didn't say when I contacted you how could I possibly
have known? Please provide the exact timestamp of the report
and ban decision.
Obviously I have no other venue to ask for the explanation
the CoC promises me. I don't believe in secrecy and have
nothing to hide, the members need to see these kind of
decisions to determine how to vote.
On June 6, 2026 7:31:56 PM EDT, Stephen Paul Weber
<singpolyma(a)singpolyma.net> wrote:
I still haven't been told why (which is itself a
violation of the CoC)
You're literally replying to an email telling you why in
a thread where you were previously told why.
so I obviously don't know if it was discussed and
agreed on by the conduct team before the ban
As you've been told several times in this thread, yes it
was.
says generally the accused should be contacted first
before punishment and that also was never done.
Several warnings were issued by mod team members during
the discussion. I know because one of them came from me.
It's true no one used the word "ban" because usually the
approach is to suggest not threaten...
Please stop using this venue for this, as you've been
told. You already contacted board and they are
(obviously) already aware of the situation. If you
cannot leave this list for the intended purpose we may
need to discuss extending the technical implementation
of the ban.