Naouak✅ is a user on You can follow them or interact with them if you have an account anywhere in the fediverse. If you don't, you can sign up here.
Naouak✅ @Naouak

If you are the administrator from a "safe" instance, please block my instance and add me to your blocklist under whatever pretense you believe fit, I don't want to have to deal with your bullshit if someone on my instance do something you don't like.

Naouak, admin from

PS: Can you boost this toot so that it reach all people concerned. Thanks.

@takeshitakenji It seems easier to strike before the problems arise :)

@Naouak May I translate your toot into Japanese and add it after your toot and then re-toot from me for Japanese admins / users? (I have been a professional translator E to J and J to E.) meow!

@Naouak oki, l'image d'en tête parle d'elle même je trouve. Dommage pour cette instance :(
Un admin, est ce que c'est un modérateur ?

@ue that's how they treat people that have said something they don't like.

@Naouak can you really blame people for wanting to keep loli (which may be illegal in their jurisdiction) off their servers? And are there really mastodon servers that just block words they don't like? If so, that's silly.

@ue The issue is not with loli content. The issue is with instances creating blocklist with strange/random reasons and forcing their judgement on others.

@Naouak tbh this shit is unavoidable in a large network of servers with owners of different aims, and how are people being forced?
it's good that mastodon is decentralised and allows you to do that kind of thing imo

@ue a major instance (like block you and you loose a huge chunk of potential people to talk to. As the network is made today, if you want your instance to be about speaking with most people as possible, you loose once big instances start blocking you.

@Naouak that's fair, and unfortunate that it happens, but I really can't blame people for wanting to block racist/nazi/anti-semetic content because if it's on the federated timeline then it could turn away users
arguably the owners of such instances believe it's worth the cost of the people using those blocked instances, if it means less potential users are turned away

@ue the main issue I have with those people is the definition of who is a Nazi and what we should do about them. I've seen people be called Nazi just because they don't agree with them.

@Naouak sure, and that's not right, but generally being a Nazi includes calling for genocide, the expulsion or killing of non-<specific race> groups of people, generally some belief in race science (lol) etc.
I agree the line is hard to draw, but it's not impossible, and whether it's "nazi" or "just less than nazi" is to the owners of those blocking instances, irrelevant, if they don't want to bear the risk

@Naouak addendum: if some outright nazi instance wanted to ban leftist/Communist instances like the one I'm on, I'd be disappointed but not *too* upset about it.

@Naouak and it's not like communities which are built almost entirely around anti-censorship become cesspools; look at voat for example
i'm happy that mastodon as a whole isn't like that, at least not yet

@Naouak Is this an anime avatar fascist crying about shitty instances being blocked by bigger instances

@msk Sure. An anime avatar can only mean a facist is behind the account.

@Naouak Well I read your timeline and you're crying about instances that foster hate speech and abuse being blocked calling it "the end of Mastodon"

Literally please just go back to 4chan or whatever hellhole you crawled out of

@msk Please note too that I'm not a 4chan user or whatever hellhole you refer to.
Please also stop to make assumptions based upon avatar and part of my speech. Thanks.

@msk No I "cry" about people abusing of administrator privileges. I would have the same reaction whether it was about any kind of content.
Please note that I made an official statement about Pawoo when it arrived for the exact same reasons.

"Abusing their privileges" doesn't really apply when protecting their users. Based on the guidelines/rules we have set for ourselves.

@maloki @msk From what I understand of @wonderfall 's story, this is in my opinion clearly a case of people abusing powers .

@Naouak As one of the admins involved, who's seen the entire development from the admin teams side, there is no abuse of power. If power was abused it was when we were nudged to unsilence by Gargron, before we had a protocol in place (something we've been starting working on in the past week or two, now that users can mute servers on their own.). This resulted in us doing so without proper communication. Which we're working to remedy now.


@Naouak @msk @maloki you should have a process in place not for appealing a block. But for notifying an admin a request to block his instance has been filed and he's expected to come tell his side.

@Balor It's going to be a protocol for both parts of the process.
I.e. what has to happen when we are about to silence a server. And what has to happen in which order if a silence is to be lifted.

@Naouak @msk

@Naouak @msk @maloki
Pleqse don't say "about to silence" in the protocol, formulate it as "when considering silencing".

The first one mean you already made a decision, the other you are open to discuss.

@Balor I'm sorry, I'm currently working an hour over my daily limit, and I've been dealing with things which are inducing physical stress symptoms for me all day.
I was just giving you a heads up about what it is going to contain and not trying to word it "perfectly".
What of the protocol will be about what to do in that instance tho, when we are about to do a silence or unsilence, as it pertains to communication.

@maloki @msk From what I understand, the instance was silenced before any kind of real appeal could have been done. @wonderfall was found guilty before he was even aware that he should defend himself.

@Naouak And from our side we had talked to him about their trouble user and they decided to double down on remaining neutral to all.
He insists that our admins did not communicate with him, while they did.

@maloki From his testimony, you contact him once but reported then that you have tried to contact him several times.

@Naouak I said we, as a team. Not me personally.

@maloki you as in " team".

@Naouak Other admins had spoken to him before I did.

@maloki then it is his testimony against yours so far.

@Naouak @maloki Here's one of the conversations he "didn't have":

Just, you know, so you have all the information before you decide who's guilty. Innocent until proven guilty, right? Not doing that is outrageous?

@noelle @maloki The instance is actually silencing him making the conversation unreadable :/

@maloki @Naouak @noelle If you have something to say regarding me, quote me.

At the time you didn't use your CM account which is a different one so I didn't know who you were (and this isn't the point). I tried to discuss about my moderation policy but you, you always bring up the problematic user on the table. This is not about this idiot, but about ideological différencies.

Also, it was already too late. silenced us when the polemic started. Try again...

@wonderfall By the polemic, I assume you mean the Nazi CW thread?
The problem here is maybe just that some things are getting lost in translation.
When we have a user on a server which harasses more than one of our users, we will contact that admin. We did, with you.
Unfortunately (maybe because of the language barrier) it came off as you were not interested in dealing with the problem, nor interested in discussing it with us.

@Naouak @noelle

This continued to show that you were not interested, and especially would not ban/remove a user because we asked you to, in other conversations as well. Some of them were in french, and we got help with translations from our French speaking CM, to understand your stance on the issue.
You continuously doubled down, on defending "free speech" even if you did not do it directly to us.

@noelle @Naouak

@maloki @wonderfall @noelle Can someone answer at least why the whole instance and not the problematic user was silenced ?

As we did not want to strong-arm you into taking action against a user you did not want to take action against, we saw this as you not willing to moderate your users. You even said so yourself, the less work I do the better.
We found as admins on m.s, that it would be best for us, to protect our users from further harassment from your server to silence your server. So we did.

@Naouak @noelle

@maloki @Naouak @noelle "The less I do, the better" might be really clumsy. That's why. My notifications column was flood with tons of comments, and since this is not my mother tongue, sometimes I make shortcuts that doesn't sound like to you the way it sounds like to me.

There's a part true in what I said, but I didn't want you to see my instance as not moderated at all.

@maloki @noelle @Naouak I don't consider I should explain my acts/thinking to I want to explain them to everyone, that's why I didn't tell you directly. I'm sorry if you think I'm not interested. What I did recently should show of course I am...

So you're saying this, you didn't want to explain to us. Then how are we supposed to have a conversation with you as an admin of your server?

@noelle @Naouak

@maloki @Naouak @noelle Not necessarily this thread in particular I think, but maybe, yes. I also said a lot on my profile, more in french though.

By "We", you mean one CM of your team asking me about the problematic user ? If I recall well, I answered my line was to do nothing until there is nothing explicit I can work with. The discussions didn't go further or it was unclear.

@Naouak @maloki I'm sorry, but to me, @noelle changed the narrative and painted @wonderfall as the bad guy. The discussion shift the blame from the banned user to the admin without hearing his side.

Moreover, this is a repetition from what happen with the previous instance ban, with the same user as the source.

To me this thread is enlightening about the clear lack of communication between instance Moderator and admin.

@Balor @Naouak @maloki Stop it. I keep seeing this phrase: "without hearing his side". Wonderfall was an active participant in that conversation. I heard his side, I just didn't agree with it. If your definition of "heard his side" is "changed my opinion" then I don't know what to tell you, because that's not how literally everyone else uses it.

@Naouak @maloki @noelle you're using your personal account to threat him about repercussions.

How is that professional?

Where in this conversation weren't you personally involved?

@Balor @Naouak @maloki wow, those goalposts were way over there a second ago

@Naouak @maloki @noelle right... Might have overstepped.

I just hope this only thread is not the reason for the silence, and if it's the case, that it will change (not the silence, how to act on it).

Because, to me, it's wrong.

@Balor @Naouak @maloki We already have a new set of guidelines for silencing that we'll be using going forward, and I believe we've agreed to open them up for public commentary sometime this week. In the meantime we're not going to be putting any new silences in place.

@Naouak @maloki @noelle glad to hear it and I'll be happy to chime in when the draft is public.

@Balor @Naouak @maloki I mean, you're just being really dishonest here. I don't know how to go forward with this. I didn't "threaten" anybody and it's borderline slanderous to say I did.

@Naouak @maloki @noelle

This is how you interpreted the situation and the end of your message can be understood as a threat.

If it's not the case, I apologize, for I have misjudged your meaning.

@Balor @Naouak @maloki I can only see that as a threat if you think of silencing an instance as a punishment. I certainly don't think of it that way - I don't want to /harm/ WF or s.t.h, I want to /protect/ m.s's users. I have no desire to cause anyone pain through moderation or to use silencing as violence, and it's genuinely upsetting that people think of it that way.

@noelle @Balor @maloki and that still doesn't explain why the whole instance instead of the single user? The whole issue comes from that particular question.

@Naouak "I want to /protect/ m.s's users." from an admin who wants to do no administration, who says himself that he does not want to talk with us directly but to everyone. "I don't consider I should explain my acts/thinking to" just now @wonderfall

@noelle @Balor

@maloki @wonderfall @noelle @Balor I don't understand then. Isn't the point of decentralization to let administrator do what they want on their policy? Isn't the point of fediverse to try to make it works with each others?
Why should you ask the stance of the admin of another instance if you have a problem with a single user? If only it was a recurring issuers with multiple users, but no, there was only one.

@Naouak Yes, finally!!
"Isn't the point of decentralization to let administrator do what they want on their policy?"
And this is what did, when silencing s.t.h.
Thank you for understanding :)

@wonderfall @noelle @Balor

@maloki @wonderfall @noelle @Balor OK, then feel free to silence directly because I have the same stance as @wonderfall on moderation (because it is the safest way for me to not be found guilty of something by French law).

@Naouak We will keep it in mind if we have issues with your server. @wonderfall @noelle @Balor

@maloki @wonderfall @noelle @Balor Don't even bother contacting me about a problematic users then. Directly silence it. I don't want to deal with issues.

@maloki @Naouak @noelle @Balor

I want you to know I'm happy this is the case and we didn't say the opposite. But has that coercitive power you should care about. Silencing is something significant, even more when it's the primary instance doing that.

@Naouak @maloki @noelle this what I mean as not seeing it from the other instance.

You're MS you're the center of communication. Silencing and an instance is not the same for you as it's for a small instance.

You are blocking the communication, the federation and the discovery of new content coming for the silenced instance.

And last but not least, how do you think other instance react when the center is silencing? They follow.

@Balor We aren't at the center of anything. Each server communicates with each other, we are not required.
The mastoverse would still be here if shut down tomorrow.
@Naouak @noelle

@Naouak @noelle @maloki please open your eyes.

You are the proton of the mastodon fediverse, the other instance are the electron.

You have more power than you seems to acknowledge, your decision are driving 80k users. 80k people communication.

You have a sphere of influence, like it or not. All the instance want to federate with you since you hold most of the accessible content.

@Balor @Naouak @maloki Not to be an ass, but... yeah? If instances want to federate with us, maybe their admins should take action when their users start harassing ours? That's literally all we're asking.

@Naouak @maloki @noelle

You're saying because you have on case of abuse, and aren't agreeing with the moderation of the instance, the whole instance needs to go down?

@Balor @maloki @noelle They are basically asking us to do their work and if we don't we are out of *their* fediverse.

@Naouak That's the feeling I'm getting also. This is sad, I hope things will change.

@Balor I'm sorry, but you can't on one hand say that each server to their own in regards to rules and how they enforce them, and then when we enforce our rules say "but not like that".
You can't have it both ways.

And I'm going to end this conversation here for tonight now.

@Balor @Naouak @maloki Stop, please. We're back where we started and it's getting nowhere. I think Mal and I are both done for the night; we'll revisit this after everybody's had a chance to cool down.

@noelle @Naouak @maloki

To me it has been an interesting debate, and I thank you for taking the time to discuss it. I respect your decision and wish you a good evening.

@Balor @Naouak @noelle @maloki balor you sure are doing a lot of posturing for people who don't give a heck about protecting their users from abuse

Fact check:
- 80k accounts != users.
- Signups wont be open again to encourage people spreading out.
- 80k is only 11% of the Mastoverse, and even less of the entire Fediverse.
- Silence still does not stop any MUTUAL concenting communication. As you can see by us talking with Wonderfall.
- Protecting our users according to our guideline is our first priority.
- Following German law, is our second priority.

@Naouak @noelle

@Balor @Naouak @maloki This is, in no small part, why we've shut down registrations and have no current plans to reopen them. We /want/ the user base to spread out; that's the whole point of federation!

Also, I should note two things: first, I'm the one who wrote the first draft of the new silencing procedures; and second, I run, one of the /smallest/ instances, and I wrote it from the perspective of "what would I want if m.s decided I was screwing up?".

@Naouak @maloki @noelle then you do acknowledge what does that mean to be silenced by MS.

You are punishing the silenced instance.

You have also to think you can be wrong, your protocol need to take that into account.

"what happens if MS screwed up the silence/ban" is as much important as what you said.

We're human, we make mistakes, all of us.

@Balor @Naouak @maloki No, I don't acknowledge that silencing means punishment, and I don't appreciate that you're putting those words in my mouth. If there's a problem I'm not taking care of a) I want to know about it, and b) I want m.s to know that I know about it even if I decide not to handle it and accept that that means cutting my users off.

Yes, we're human and make mistakes; /that's why we have the new policies/.

@maloki @noelle From what I seeing there, @wonderfall is true to french values and culture and you are just forcing on him your culture saying his is wrong. (France let Front National speaks because we would in our opinion be the worst one if they could not speak)

Now, I think the main issue is the response to the problem: it is disproportionate. The issue is with one user, the instance policy about that should not matter.

@wonderfall @noelle @maloki Now, what we should ask ourselves is :
If there is a problematic user on an instance, should the user be responsible or the instance admin ?

Obviously, if it is repeated, the answer could change.

@Naouak @noelle the instance policy ends up mattering, when they come back with "We are happy to communicate with other admins, but first be aware of our rules", rules which then say only "excessive harassment" is bannable, and even "maybe not".
Therein lies the mismatch in policy.

@maloki @noelle So we disagree about that point. Here the problem is one user but you painted the whole instance as bad because the administrator has a different set of values from your team. In my opinion, this kind of thinking means that the fediverse can't exists as one big network but as several per cultural values network.

@Naouak @maloki I can try to get screenshots if you want? I was kind of an asshole about the "innocent etc." thing, sorry about that, I just want to have something I can point to and say "no, seriously, I talked to him about this, he should not have been taken by surprise".

@noelle @Naouak @maloki Second time you avoid me. If you want proofs, I can give them to all of you. Like I said, I don't want to show private messages because they should always remain private.

My testimony remains what it is, I said you contacted me once before, and I didn't deny it at all. :)

@wonderfall After your server was unsilenced there were still 1000 accounts on your server silenced. Probably all the accounts which would've federated to the public timeline otherwise. So it is possible that @noelle never received your message because they were caught by the no-notification part of the silence.


@maloki @noelle @Naouak Okay, I give the benefit of the doubt (so you recall what messages I'm talking about) - like I said Gargron was following me, but I don't want to blame him, he has many other things to do.

But that doesn't change the fact that no efforts were made before the second silence.

I won't let anyone say I'm not open to discussion since it's not true. And even right now, you can DM me, I'll answer.

@wonderfall The second silence was literally made to "UNDO" the first incorrect unsilence, because we did not follow a protocol we wanted to have in place for unsilencing people.
Then you decided to make a huge deal out of it, even though we told you that we would look at unsilencing in due time but we needed some time to figure out how we wanted to deal with these situations.

@noelle @Naouak

@maloki @Naouak @wonderfall To add to this: the intent of getting you on the discourse servers is not to make you "answer for your acts". Again, it's protective: sunlight is the best disinfectant. We want to make absolutely sure - especially after this weekend - that there's a public record of the decision-making process so that nobody can accuse anybody of shady dealing.

@wonderfall @Naouak @maloki If you'd rather hash things out privately, with the understanding that we'll be publishing a digest of the results, I think we can accommodate that. Our goal in the public appeal is to STOP people from saying "oh I bet Wonderfall paid them off, what about the next server?" or something like that.

@noelle @Naouak @wonderfall We have also offered to bring @CM_eramdam in for proper translations. But then we have to find a time which suits them, due to timezones.

@maloki @noelle @Naouak @CM_eramdam Like I said, too late for me. But I can't be more happy if things will be more transparent in the future.

Although I think more private discussions with other admins should be welcomed as well.

@wonderfall Okay, then I think we can finish off here for today, and just say "we'll be in touch".
And promise each other we wont write anything to antagonize or instigate the other side for a grace period of 7 days, so we can sort everything we need to sort out first?
Because that would be highly appreciated.

@noelle @Naouak @CM_eramdam

@maloki @noelle @Naouak @CM_eramdam

Okay, I don't want drama too, in fact this conversation should be better in a private place... I said everything I had to say in my article, I wish I could translate it directly. But I think you know my point somehow. At least I hope so.

I will focus on my instance future in the following days so you won't hear much about me.

@maloki @CM_eramdam

Okay, but I'm afraid this a lot work to do so maybe it could be summarized (though it can be dangerous, I made it 3000 words so it can be really clear).

Also I'd like to make sure you know we may disagree because we certainly have cultural differences. I'm sure you want what's the best for your instance and I want what's best too, but we don't share the same perception. And I think that fundamentally, no one should claim something is right/wrong. has its line, I'm fine with it, but it has consequences on the Fediverse too.

Spend a good day/night (it's really late here).

@maloki @noelle @Naouak Like you said I made a huge deal with it, but that was surely not the only reason why I decided to let it go. This was the missing factor so I could do that. On top of that, I didn't want to cause my users more trouble because of this drama I didn't want.

Insults + tons of explications to do + being blocked + silenced by, this made me so tired I do want to get away. And this is my right. If you want to debate this, I can still debate but not as an admin and there's plenty of people thinking like me.

@maloki @noelle @Naouak This is again misunderstanding, I didn't mean that. I said "+" as this was another object. :(

@wonderfall If you want to make a list of unconnected statemenst you should use a semi-colon [;] in English, that way we know that the block + silence from is not connected.
Sorry, to go grammar on you, but it helps to know. :)
@noelle @Naouak

@wonderfall @Naouak @maloki I'm sorry. I removed you because as far as I know you'd been added to the conversation (in other words, we weren't replying to you), and I didn't feel it was honest to include you when I couldn't see your responses.

@maloki @Naouak Like I said in my article, CM Noelle did contact once about the problematic user. Once and only once, but not to discuss my moderation policy. You know what happened next.

After the first silence, I did contact Gargron and Noelle, but no one answered me.

@wonderfall Silencing means that they probably couldn't read your messages. As it blocks notifications and DMs.


@maloki @Naouak Gargron was following me so he could talk to you about the unsilence.

After our instance was unsilenced, I took time to write a message so they could read it. But they didn't answer it. And the next day, I learn my instance is being silenced with a public statement... That is not what I call effort of communication.

@maloki @wonderfall It reinforce my point. You declared someone guilty before they could even defend themselves. It is something outrageous for French culture as it is one of the founding principle of our country : Innocent until proven guilty.

@maloki Also, I don't understand why the instance should be silenced when the issue is only with one user.

@maloki @Naouak I still insist on it... and you didn't answer my messages either (I have proofs, but I don't like to show private conversations).

But you know what, I can give you a second chance too. Perhaps you were not ready yet with your protocol and things should've been transparent. I'd like to see how you will deal with something like this in the future.

@maloki @msk @wonderfall @Naouak More a lack of communication and a misunderstanding of what a decision mean for the instance on the other end.

@Naouak Très bonne idée, ayant déjà eu à faire à ce genre de personnes, mieux vaut prévenir que guérir. :)