5 Jun
2026
5 Jun
'26
6:08 p.m.
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
6 Jun
6 Jun
1:30 a.m.
Dear Travis,
* Travis Burtrum <travis(a)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
8:48 a.m.
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(a)op-co.de> wrote:
Dear Travis,
* Travis Burtrum <travis(a)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 
9:59 a.m.
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
1:58 p.m.
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(a)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
[1]: https://hg.prosody.im/prosody-modules/rev/228859ea4781 
3:49 p.m.
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(a)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 
4:14 p.m.
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(a)icebound.dev
4:27 p.m.
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.
6:23 p.m.
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(a)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.
6:31 p.m.
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.
6:46 p.m.
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(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.
7:02 p.m.
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>, 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.
7 Jun
7 Jun
3:23 p.m.
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>, 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.
8 Jun
8 Jun
8:04 a.m.
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(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>, 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. 
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.
9:19 a.m.
On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 at 14:19, eevvoor via Members <members(a)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.
9:30 a.m.
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(a)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.
9:46 a.m.
On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 at 15:30, eevvoor <eevvoor(a)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.
9:51 a.m.
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(a)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.
6 Jun
6 Jun
7:45 p.m.
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(a)icebound.dev
9 Jun
9 Jun
5:28 a.m.
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
8 Jun
8 Jun
9:11 a.m.
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
23
days inactive
27
days old
22 comments
9 participants
participants (9)
-
Dave Cridland -
eevvoor -
Florian Schmaus -
Georg Lukas -
Jonas Schäfer -
Mickaël Rémond -
Polarian -
Stephen Paul Weber -
Travis Burtrum