We can go with fact checking sites:Claim
Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown said that 75-year-old Martin Gugino was being an "agitator" before local police pushed him to the pavement in June 2020.
Rating
True
BREAKING: Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown claims that the 75-year-old protestor violently pushed to the ground by two police officers was an “agitator” and a “key and major instigator” of activities such as vandalism and looting
— US Protests: News & Updates (@USAProtests) June 6, 2020
So much to unpack...
wmLambert
literally wrote the following, and you came to his defense by inadvertently posting a rebuttal:
Martin Gugino is openly named by his own mayor as a professional agitator for Antifa.
Next, you link to truthorfiction.com (

) in order to provide support, somehow, for using the word "agitator", as if that was the only claim wmLambert made (it was not, so your walk-back itself is exceptionally lame):
Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown said that 75-year-old Martin Gugino was being an "agitator" before local police pushed him to the pavement
But, see those quotes around the word "agitator"? Those convey that a word is being repeated verbatim. However, Mayor Byron Brown
never used that word when describing Gugino. So the fact check is on the most basic level incorrect. Sure, truthyorfiction.com could have argued that the Mayor described actions that could be interpreted as agitating, but this 'fact check' did not do that.
Finally, you end your response with a quote making a claim
that you yourself already showed as being incorrect in your earlier postIs it really so hard to say "oops, I was wrong"? It's probably less embarrassing than what you just did to yourself.