User:WGFinley

Guy Finley is:
 * A proud dad.
 * Owner of a so-called life and family.
 * A libertarian and retired elected official.

About Me




I got started with Wikipedia after I was constantly coming to it for research reasons on various issues. Before long I saw areas where I could contribute and have done so. Lately my focus has been on the Watergate scandal and trying to get bios up for all the figures, correct articles that need it, expand them where needed.

Also I get very interested in photos and trying to ensure they are verified and pass muster to be included. I spend a lot of time locating public domain versions of non-free images, usually concerning U.S. Presidents.

Spent most of my professional career in insurance before moving into tech and web design. Guess that degree from USC will never get finished!!

I'm a strong believer that some of our claims on fair use stretch too far, especially when we don't at least try to secure permissions for copyrighted works. I think my success here demonstrates you can be successful, even with two of the most famous photos in the world.

As an advocate I certainly emulate the great Clarence Darrow, maybe it's because we're both from Illinois. I particularly love one of his famous quotations:


 * "Lost causes are the only ones worth fighting for."

The Tao of Wiki
A long time ago someone said I understood the "Tao of Wiki". Now she may be wrong since she has left the project but maybe she was on to something. Here is how I approach things, especially as it relates to my role as an admin.

Every editor has interests and thus, bias (yes, even admins)
As listed below I have things that I like, if you look at my contributions outside of admin duty you will see them pretty quickly. I avoid using my admin tools on things I have an interest in and try to avoid any admin duties there. Sure, if someone vandalizes an article in my interest area and it warrants use of admin tools I will use them. Otherwise, I try to stay out of it.

There is nothing in the world wrong with bias. We all have bias and we all have a perspective we edit from. Where is the line drawn? When the way you edit starts to affect others. Where does this usually happen? In things we care passionately about. Therefore, I try not to edit in areas I care passionately about. Good luck finding an edit of mine in libertarianism, there may be one here or there early on but I learned it's best to avoid topics where your judgment can get clouded.

How you say something is just as important as what you say
During discussion of a block or a ban, particularly in general sanction areas the call of "didn't you read my edit, how could you not support that!" or something along those lines is heard. I can honestly say "no". Why? I don't analyze content in areas where I'm serving in an admin capacity for one and even if I do agree with it, if the way it was done was wrong I will take action each and every time. In topic areas that are subject to sanction there is no room for Machiavelli in my mind.

I'm a major fan of explaining reverts. Many experienced admins have used this theory when crafting sanctions for pages that are involved in disputes. Basically edit wars are fermented by the revert particularly the unexplained revert or the revert with a curt or nasty comment. If you find yourself in dispute with others you may want to hold yourself to a 1RR or ask others if they would likewise do it. Discussion can be encouraged when the power of the revert is off of the table.

Don't get bunkered
It's clear that over time in sanctioned topic areas the partisan camps begin to bunker.
 * They dig in, they begin to pick up many bad habits like failing to assume good faith and do the opposite more often then not.
 * New editors coming in can frequently find themselves labeled as part of a certain camp or there for a certain cause as their contributions are going to be subject to scrutiny by the partisans on both sides of the issue.
 * Reversions are made without explanation and without discussion as if assuming anyone who ever edits the article should be familiar with the 3 or 4 or more years of history on that article.
 * They make edits they know are going to be roundly criticized by the other side or, worse, they reintroduce edits that were left for dead in previous discussions with the same people.

I call this bunkering, don't get bunkered.

Drowning is generally a bad idea
I see editors get immersed in Wikipedia, so much so that they drown. Drowning is bad. If things are getting too tense, just walk away. The sun is going to rise tomorrow, the world will go on as it was even though the article may not reflect exactly what you would like. Chances are millions of young minds have not been polluted by the obviously and blatantly false material that your opposition has put up, right? Seriously, if you get to these ways of thinking, if you find that you can't just walk away from it easily any more then a Wikibreak is in order and I highly recommend them (I know, I've taken a few!).

Current Projects
Preston Tucker

1948 Tucker Sedan

Watergate related articles (still)