"

On 19:57, 12 August 2012‎ you (86.150.65.44) made an edit with the edit title ""Revert unauthorised change to my comment by Wtshymanski""

Seven minutes later, on 20:04, 12 August 2012 you posted the above warning.

Diff for your revert

Your change consisted of changing a link. Wtshymanski had it as  

Request for Comment

and your revert changed it to

Request for Comment Request

(Is that related to the Department of Redundancy Department?)

Your full paragraph: ""It was not a personal attack but a statement of undisputed fact (and was not even disputed by you at the recent Request for Comment Request, whose outcome you still continue to ignore. The above two points underline the point admirably.""

Your link goes to an RfC that was closed on  with an outcome of

""no immediate administrative action appears required. However, I invite Wtshymanski to take the concerns voiced here under serious consideration. Administrative action may be requested if the conduct that has been the focus of this discussion continues.""

When you say ""whose outcome you still continue to ignore"", that implies that he should respond at the link you posted. But he can't. It's closed and has had no comments for months. Furthermore, how can you know whether he is ignoring the advice to take something under serious consideration? The link Wtshymanski provided is where the active discussion is ongoing (last post a week ago at 16:54, 4 August 2012) and the place where one would reasonably expect Wtshymanski to respond. Thus I conclude not only that the edit was reasonable, but that Wtshymanski wants his critics to go to the right place.

I am the first one to come down hard on Wtshymanski when he does something wrong, but only when it is clear that he has actually done something wrong. In my opinion this incident does not rise to that level. It is a debatable correction to a URL that should have been handled with WP:BRD instead of a user warning. Nobody ever made a ruling that WP:AGF does not apply to Wtshymanski.    "