Hi, Someone just wrongfully banned me from the XSF MUC, I of course don't think I said anything that should result in a ban at all, but clearly neither of these <https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0458.html#immediate> apply so if someone thought I did it should follow the reporting+discussion requirements from the CoC, and not be a unilateral ban from a mod that doesn't like what I said. I'd like to be unbanned immediately and the mod that wrongfully banned me to re-read the CoC they are supposed to enforce. Thanks, moparisthebest
Dear Travis, * Travis Burtrum <travis@burtrum.org> [2026-06-06 01:08]:
Someone just wrongfully banned me from the XSF MUC, I of course don't think I said anything that should result in a ban at all.
I was that someone, and I did so after multiple warnings to you due to your behavior. We can discuss the specifc details off-list if you wish so.
but clearly neither of these <https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0458.html#immediate> apply so if someone thought I did it should follow the reporting+discussion requirements from the CoC, and not be a unilateral ban from a mod that doesn't like what I said.
We (the XSF moderation team that was formed by Board on March 5th) have followed the CoC and arrived at the conclusion that a temporary ban is appropriate.
I'd like to be unbanned immediately and the mod that wrongfully banned me to re-read the CoC they are supposed to enforce.
The CoC states that you have the right to appeal the decision with the Board. Bringing it to the members@ list, however, is not appropriate. Therefore, this is my final email to this thread and I kindly ask everybody else to not continue this discussion on this list. Georg
Hello, I brought it to the member's list and not board because the CoC was not followed since I was banned immediately when clearly nothing warranted that. Someone else obviously agreed since I was unbanned a few hours later (and then re-banned later obviously). The CoC also says:
Finally, the result will normally be explained to the person accused of bad conduct
Which wasn't done, I would welcome the specific details to be discussed in public since I did nothing wrong. I have CC'd board@ here (note: CoC doesn't say how to contact board, it should) who can consider this my appeal. I would additionally ask for an explanation as to why Ge0rg didn't abide by the CoC when banning me immediately, and for a plan to prevent this from happening in the future. Thanks, moparisthebest On June 6, 2026 2:30:32 AM EDT, Georg Lukas <georg@op-co.de> wrote:
Dear Travis,
* Travis Burtrum <travis@burtrum.org> [2026-06-06 01:08]:
Someone just wrongfully banned me from the XSF MUC, I of course don't think I said anything that should result in a ban at all.
I was that someone, and I did so after multiple warnings to you due to your behavior. We can discuss the specifc details off-list if you wish so.
but clearly neither of these <https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0458.html#immediate> apply so if someone thought I did it should follow the reporting+discussion requirements from the CoC, and not be a unilateral ban from a mod that doesn't like what I said.
We (the XSF moderation team that was formed by Board on March 5th) have followed the CoC and arrived at the conclusion that a temporary ban is appropriate.
I'd like to be unbanned immediately and the mod that wrongfully banned me to re-read the CoC they are supposed to enforce.
The CoC states that you have the right to appeal the decision with the Board. Bringing it to the members@ list, however, is not appropriate.
Therefore, this is my final email to this thread and I kindly ask everybody else to not continue this discussion on this list.
Georg
On Samstag, 6. Juni 2026 15:48:30 Mitteleuropäische Sommerzeit Travis Burtrum wrote:
Someone else obviously agreed since I was unbanned a few hours later
To clarify this part, without commenting on anything else in this thread: That was a technical malfunction of the mod_muc_members_json module, which overrode the outcast affiliation set by the moderators. That bug has been fixed [1] and the fix has been deployed earlier today, ...
(and then re-banned later obviously).
... after which the intent of the moderator team has been restored. kind regards, Jonas [1]: https://hg.prosody.im/prosody-modules/rev/228859ea4781
Thanks for that, always happy to help fix bugs. :D Still that means Ge0rg unilaterally banned me without discussing with the mod team first as the CoC requires. And I'm still waiting for the ban reason I was supposed to be provided with. On June 6, 2026 10:59:05 AM EDT, "Jonas Schäfer" <jonas@wielicki.name> wrote:
On Samstag, 6. Juni 2026 15:48:30 Mitteleuropäische Sommerzeit Travis Burtrum wrote:
Someone else obviously agreed since I was unbanned a few hours later
To clarify this part, without commenting on anything else in this thread: That was a technical malfunction of the mod_muc_members_json module, which overrode the outcast affiliation set by the moderators.
That bug has been fixed [1] and the fix has been deployed earlier today, ...
(and then re-banned later obviously).
... after which the intent of the moderator team has been restored.
kind regards, Jonas
Before or after the ban? I asked a member of the mod team when it happened and they hadn't heard and I still have yet up be provided with a reason. I went over the chat and I see nothing I did even remotely against the CoC and no warnings. Still waiting on that reason and please feel free to make it public here. I can't really be expected to properly appeal to the board without that. On June 6, 2026 3:55:53 PM EDT, "Mickaël Rémond" <mremond@process-one.net> wrote:
Hello,
On 6 Jun 2026, at 20:58, Travis Burtrum wrote:
Still that means Ge0rg unilaterally banned me without discussing with the mod team first as the CoC requires.
This is not correct. That decision was actually discussed with the mod team.
Best regards,
-- Mickaël Rémond
Hey, As moparisthebest has been unbanned, what is the reason for continuing this on the mailing list? Its just causing noise. It has already been established the ban itself was a mistake and thus been revoked. Others have expressed the fact it was excessive on XMPP. Can't we just have calm? Thanks, -- Polarian Jabber/XMPP: polarian@icebound.dev
As moparisthebest has been unbanned, what is the reason for continuing this on the mailing list? Its just causing noise.
They have not been unbanned, but will be on Tuesday at the end of the moderation-team agreed temp ban period, which they were informed of by me within moments of the ban having been executed. I'm told they were also informed by PM by the one who executed the ban. OTOH, they were specifically asked not to keep talking about it here on list as this is not an appropriate venue for appeal.
It has already been established the ban itself was a mistake
There was no mistake. After several warnings about repeated code of conduct violations issued to the member, all of which have been ignored or even outright rejected as valid by the member, the moderation team voted that the breach yesterday was an "enough is enough" moment and issued the temporary retriction until Tuesday. If you want a chapter an verse from the Code of Conduct for some reason, the usually cited sections are "2.4 Be Respectful" and "2.5 Be Friendly and Supportive". I believe yesterday's violations ran afoul of both of these. The member was warned, infomred their conduct was inappropriate by several moderation team members, and continued even after a ban had been effected (due to the temporary technical issue that accidentally rescinded the ban as has been described up thread). The mod team has been discussing and is very aware that communication about this action was weak. There are a number of excuses here, but no matter it has been resolved to communicate around these actions more verbosely in the future to avoid misunderstandings.
I messaged singpolyma since no one warned me ever or contacted me before or after the ban. singpolyma told me that he didn't ban me so it must have been someone else. I still haven't been told why (which is itself a violation of the CoC) and so I obviously don't know if it was discussed and agreed on by the conduct team before the ban (if not that's another violation). I'll also note the CoC says generally the accused should be contacted first before punishment and that also was never done. In a separate thread I'll address how the CoC says to contact the board or conduct team but provides no way to do so, nor does the website. Until that's resolved I'll continue to demand the reason for the ban here, which is the only venue available to me and required by the CoC. If someone wants to tell me in private instead you all obviously have my XID and email which is the same. It's absolutely unacceptable >24 hours and counting have passed without anyone telling me. On June 6, 2026 5:27:05 PM EDT, Stephen Paul Weber <singpolyma@singpolyma.net> wrote:
As moparisthebest has been unbanned, what is the reason for continuing this on the mailing list? Its just causing noise.
They have not been unbanned, but will be on Tuesday at the end of the moderation-team agreed temp ban period, which they were informed of by me within moments of the ban having been executed. I'm told they were also informed by PM by the one who executed the ban.
OTOH, they were specifically asked not to keep talking about it here on list as this is not an appropriate venue for appeal.
It has already been established the ban itself was a mistake
There was no mistake. After several warnings about repeated code of conduct violations issued to the member, all of which have been ignored or even outright rejected as valid by the member, the moderation team voted that the breach yesterday was an "enough is enough" moment and issued the temporary retriction until Tuesday.
If you want a chapter an verse from the Code of Conduct for some reason, the usually cited sections are "2.4 Be Respectful" and "2.5 Be Friendly and Supportive". I believe yesterday's violations ran afoul of both of these. The member was warned, infomred their conduct was inappropriate by several moderation team members, and continued even after a ban had been effected (due to the temporary technical issue that accidentally rescinded the ban as has been described up thread).
The mod team has been discussing and is very aware that communication about this action was weak. There are a number of excuses here, but no matter it has been resolved to communicate around these actions more verbosely in the future to avoid misunderstandings.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 <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@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 <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.
On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 at 14:19, eevvoor via Members <members@xmpp.org> wrote:
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.
I have no record of any messages from you (aside from the above) about the CoC during its drafting or subsequently, so if I missed some I apologise. I can assure you I did do my level best to listen to all the discussion, and answer most messages directly. There was - at least on my part - no intent to disallow anyone from expressing any opinions. Not all opinions ended up reflected in the document, but I did try to thread the line between often contradictory opinions. If there's a single thing I've learned about these things, it's that nobody is happy with any particular Code of Conduct - some are unhappy with the very concept. As for approval, I drafted the CoC but didn't have direct participation in approving it either; that's done by the Board, and the Board is voted in by the membership, so you've had the same input I have. Dave.
You see how easily things can go wrong. So I would review Travis' request carefully. Thanks Dave On 6/8/26 4:19 PM, Dave Cridland wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 at 14:19, eevvoor via Members <members@xmpp.org <mailto:members@xmpp.org>> wrote:
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.
I have no record of any messages from you (aside from the above) about the CoC during its drafting or subsequently, so if I missed some I apologise. I can assure you I did do my level best to listen to all the discussion, and answer most messages directly. There was - at least on my part - no intent to disallow anyone from expressing any opinions. Not all opinions ended up reflected in the document, but I did try to thread the line between often contradictory opinions.
If there's a single thing I've learned about these things, it's that nobody is happy with any particular Code of Conduct - some are unhappy with the very concept.
As for approval, I drafted the CoC but didn't have direct participation in approving it either; that's done by the Board, and the Board is voted in by the membership, so you've had the same input I have.
Dave.
Dear Dave, I thank your for your comment and clarification on the CoC. Nothing else was meant. My remark about Travis's case was for those responsible. - eevvoor On 6/8/26 4:46 PM, Dave Cridland wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 at 15:30, eevvoor <eevvoor@mailbox.org <mailto:eevvoor@mailbox.org>> wrote:
You see how easily things can go wrong. So I would review Travis' request carefully. Thanks Dave
I don't know what you mean by the first, and I have nothing to do with, and no opinion on, Travis's case.
Dave.
Hey,
They have not been unbanned, but will be on Tuesday at the end of the moderation-team agreed temp ban period, which they were informed of by me within moments of the ban having been executed.
Apologies, I didn't quite understand what Jonas was talking about, I understand now.
OTOH, they were specifically asked not to keep talking about it here on list as this is not an appropriate venue for appeal.
I think this is 50/50, mopar is arguing that the moderation action was wrong. By appealing in private the case is not seen by other members. The membership elects the board and the council, the board has elected you (the moderation team) to moderate, if the conduct of moderator(s) is to be questioned, then I don't see why there shouldn't be a case taken to the membership on the mailing list. On the other hand, the drama is undesirable.
If you want a chapter an verse from the Code of Conduct for some reason, the usually cited sections are "2.4 Be Respectful" and "2.5 Be Friendly and Supportive".
You don't need to justify your decision to me. I also agree, he was not being respectful. However this is quite common when discussions get heated, or when people get emotional. I myself have lost my cool within the operators channel. This is why assuming good faith is required, and I can't honestly feel like any of the moderation staff involved in said incident assumed any good faith. Sometimes discussions are hard to keep civil (especially ones of a political nature), and its important that people take a step back when that boundary has been crossed or are about to be crossed. A mute would have been more than enough to satisfy this, mopar became argumentative, he refused to take a step back, mute him. It seems the actions taken from moderation was in bad faith and that mopar is out to verbally abuse everyone, so he must be banned asap. This is exactly how a heated argument blows up into this. I will note I have been given two bad faith warnings for moderation in the past. One of them was actually me trying to be productive but was assumed to be insulting, and the other was issued for a discussion between where me and someone else choose to spend our cash, in fact, we were discussing an operator meetup. So I know first hand that at least one of the moderation staff assumes bad faith, so this is a problem.
infomred their conduct was inappropriate by several moderation team members
I am sorry but this is not entirely true. Ge0rG said:
moparisthebest: please stop it now.
With mopar's response obviously being argumentative:
why? you gonna sue me ?
and then you responded:
That's really rather inappropriate
in which mopar stated directly after:
lol I'm done too
in which Ge0rG then replied:
moparisthebest: no, I would moderate you and then you can sue the XSF, me, or anybody else to get that lifted.
So observations: 1. Only one person pointed out that his comment was inappropriate (singpolyma), with no threat of moderation or highlighting that it violated the CoC, aka no due process. 2. There was at no point a warning of code of conduct violation and a threat of moderation from Ge0rG. 3. Mopar actually finished only to be banned the moment he did. (Obviously anything sent in private I can't see, and thus there could be more to this) I am sorry, as much as I would love to blame mopar, this entire drama was caused through woeful moderation, no due process which you explained to me was followed, no clear warning of moderation was issued, and a ban issued after the drama had seemingly ceased.
(due to the temporary technical issue that accidentally rescinded the ban as has been described up thread).
As a result of this and the aforementioned moderator action, led to mopar returning angered about the moderation action, and also the drama on the list. Which all seemed avoidable with a simple mute, or just letting it go and letting the drama cease for everyone's sake.
and continued even after a ban had been effected
I don't know what was said in private, but all I saw this morning was mopar opposing moderator action, and if we get to the point where someone is moderated for disagreeing with the actions of another member then there's a problem.
The mod team has been discussing and is very aware that communication about this action was weak. There are a number of excuses here, but no matter it has been resolved to communicate around these actions more verbosely in the future to avoid misunderstandings.
I think this evaluation is severely lacking. Moderators were too heavy handed (IMO) and I am not the only person who seems to hold this opinion, on a heated discussion which started from what looked like a legitimate question about the usefulness of the XSF having a legal entity. You can not throw petrol on a fire, and then take credit for putting the fire out and ignoring the collateral damage caused. This has lasted an extra day than it should have, spread to the mailing list because a member complained about their treatment, which I don't entirely disagree with. No due process, no clear warnings, and moderation after the drama would have potentially ceased. That's not just merely poor communication, that is a total failure. And mopar how hard is it to apologise for your conduct? A sure way to get unbanned if you feel like you have been wrongly banned is to first apologise, you don't even need to agree that your conduct was wrong, just apologising that if you had offended anyone during your discussion is the best way to de-escalate a situation. This all was entirely avoidable (IMO), and you both (that being the moderation team and mopar) are as bad as each other. So could the bureaucracy be cut, and people accept the incident for what it is, a discussion which got out of hand. Please stop throwing mud at each other, and accept you both acted wrong. For the sake of the mailing list and the other members in the community. I hope the 2 hours I spent drafting this email might help avoid this repeating all this drama the next time there is a CoC violation. Take care, -- Polarian Jabber/XMPP: polarian@icebound.dev
The Board has reviewed the logs, consulted the moderation team, and sent a detailed private response to Travis. After careful review, the Board upholds the moderation team's decision. The ban has now expired, and Travis' access is restored. The XSF is committed to an open culture where all opinions, whether consensus or minority perspectives, can be freely debated. However, we must distinguish between expressing a strong opinion and engaging in disruptive behavior. We are actively using this incident as an opportunity to review and improve our moderation processes. Moving forward, the Board is working with the moderation team to refine our procedures and explore more nuanced tools for handling future escalations. We consider this specific matter resolved and look forward to continued, constructive collaboration across the community. Flow On behalf of the XSF Board
Dear community, regarding the recent code of conduct incident, I'd like to provide the following feedback from the moderation team: 1. The specific incident was escalated to Board for a review. We (the mod-team) and I specifically will provide full transparency to Board. Until Board makes their decision, the moderation team will refrain from any further communications in this case (beyond providing assistance/evidence/transparency to Board). 2. The communication to the affected member before and after the administrative action was not sufficiently clear. The moderation team now has established internal rules to ensure that warnings are clearly marked as mod-team actions and not as individual opinions. In addition, we'll explicitly and immediately inform the affected users in 1:1 in case they are using an XMPP client that does not display who banned them or why. 3. Regarding the suggestion to mute offenders, this is not easily possible in XEP-0045 MUCs. We are currently evaluating technical solutions to work around the protocol limitation. I'm very sorry for the confusion and frustration caused by the unclear initial communication. Georg on behalf of the mod-team
participants (9)
-
Dave Cridland -
eevvoor -
Florian Schmaus -
Georg Lukas -
Jonas Schäfer -
Mickaël Rémond -
Polarian -
Stephen Paul Weber -
Travis Burtrum