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

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 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> 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/>

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#2026-06-05-11ce8c2ae56c5f91>

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>

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@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@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@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>, 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@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.