I don't believe proper free software projects require significant moderation of behavior between individuals.
If someone says something that rises to the level of a crime, report it to your local authorities.
Otherwise, if a person is generally toxic enough, they will be worked around.
Note that expelling a person from a project for being a jerk in one or more instances may do more harm than good. What is the value of their technical contributions? Just how much of a jerk were they?
Unfortunately, some snowflakes like to believe that everyone contributes equally. That is simply not the case. And, in fact, some people contribute a _negative_ amount overall. Which is to say, the project is better off without their participation.
Linux has changed the world -- in a very substantial way and much for the better -- even though Linus flew off the handle at people for years. That doesn't mean he is completely beyond criticism, but it does indicate to me that we need to put a significant check in place against these "feelings committees." Their sensibilities are becoming ever more delicate.
You can't have a complex technical project that is successful without some minimum level of competency. For better or worse, competency often makes people a little rougher around the edges.
Choose your tradeoff carefully.
edit: Adding an addendum here because of a lot of people seem quite triggered by the use of the word toxic and frankly, I don't have time to reply to all of you.
I used the word toxic in this post precisely once, to say that people who are toxic enough will be worked around.
Toxicity is not a yes/no question. It's a matter of degree and context. So is technical contribution.
Everyone is capable of saying things they will regret later. Some people are capable of saying things that everyone else will regret, frequently.
With regards to "competency" and "rough around the edges" -- note I used the phrase "rough around the edges" and NOT toxic. Many of you seem to be making that substitution.
Have the lot of you never worked with someone who knows their shit, is opinionated, and isn't afraid to let you know it? They're often intimidating, even if they don't mean to be. Submitting a PR for review to them can be nervewracking even if they are entirely nice about it. Sometimes a fair critique will cut a little deeper because the code is your baby, and they didn't sugarcoat it enough for your liking. And, once in a while, they're willing to get in a heated debate because they feel strongly about something.
The very nature of being critical (which is required for quality code) is enough to provoke some unwanted emotions in other people. Even if those negative emotions aren't intended. And sometimes, getting into a heated argument about something is justified if it saves a lot of pain later.
Somehow, there is a lot of triggering going on here, and not a lot of acknowledgement of nuance.