Hi!

Thanks Matej for your input! It is appreciated!

As (too) much was already said, I am going to add nothing beyond where it directly addresses me, to correct some statements.

To my best memory, the agreement to go for a mediation was done only about half a year ago (but it is now buried in old messages, so I am not sure).

I do not recall that I agreed with AffCom that I will not "posting [my] grievances in various places around the community". I have agreed that I will not discuss WMSVK's violations with people who have done them. And I have violated this once or twice early in the process in instant messenger or similar and have apologized timely. Because of the similarity of the two versions, I believe and hope that this Matej's / WMSVK's belief is based on a rather free interpretation of non-written communications between different parties (you know the "telephone" game ;). I believe I have informed Matej about this several hours ago.

Did my mindset not allowed to proceed a mediation? Well, I sincerely do not know! I have never participated consciously in a formal mediation - so I do not know what *precisely* (in details) to expect. Maybe yes, maybe not. Based on my conceptual understanding of mediation, I generally tend to believe that my mindset is ok about that and allow mediation. I am a natural problem solver and if all parties want to find a common ground, I am in! AffCom expressed that it considered the *topics* to be not appropriate for mediation. Is Matej well experienced in mediation, so he knows whether I would fit in or not? If not, it would be nice If he would present more factual statements.

Best regards! KuboF Hromoslav (Michal Matúšov)

ut 26. 10. 2021 o 23:23 Matej Grochal matej.grochal@wikimedia.sk napísal(a):

Dear all

this is Matej Grochal, chair of Wikimedians of Slovakia and one of the parties in the conflict. I am just coming into the discussion as I was not aware of it from the beginning and was not a member of this mailing list.

Let me offer you my input on this matter.

About a year ago, Mr Matúšov and I (representing WMSK) agreed on mediation. AffCom was to be the mediator. We had an individual call in December 2020 with AffCom but WMSK and I pushed for having a mediation call of both parties and AffCom as the mediator. After some coordination during spring 2021, AffCom called off the mediation just as it seemed that it was going to go ahead. The reason given was that both sides do not agree to the terms of mediation. We emailed back for clarification while restating our commitment to proceed with it. Around the time I reached out to Mr Matúšov who seemed perplexed that the mediation had been cancelled and committed himself as well. Not having a clear understanding of the situation, I contacted AffCom who replied that mediation would not proceed due to differences already mentioned. Since our commitment was clear, we wanted to know what happened. They informed us that Mr Matúšov was of a different mind about mediation and so it could not go ahead. (Not very surprising since there are two parties to the mediation). This was somewhat perplexing still so I kept in touch with Mr Matúšov and made sure we are on the same page about what mediation means. We were. However, I also came to understand that he was indeed not ready for mediation. The same conclusion was reached from further communication with him and AffCom during the fall of 2021. Even if AffCom did not state explicitly that it was Mr Matúšov who cancelled the mediation, they would have every right to do so. His mind set did not allow it to proceed and he effectively cancelled the process. The matter was further complicated by the fact that despite waiting for mediation, Mr Matúšov kept posting his grievances in various places around the community after having agreed not to do so with AffCom. I will let you judge whether this is acting in good faith. To sum up: while AffCom could have been somewhat faster and more clear on certain issues, I would not blame AffCom for providing false information. I would also appreciate if accusations of providing false behaviour were less lightly thrown.

Thank you

Matej Grochal