User talk:USPS Communications

Louis DeJoy introductory paragraphs
Good day Wikipedia editors. My username is USPS Communications and I am an employee of the United States Postal Service. We noticed that certain information is outdated and prejudicial on the page for Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, specifically the below should be corrected based on the rationales provided. We provided sourced replacement language and links to appropriate information. Please let me know at your earliest convenience if these edits are approved and any next steps in order to update the article. Appreciate your time and consideration (as well as further advice if I am appropriately offering these edits). In the first section, we suggest the following that first paragraph stands, however the second and third paragraphs should be replaced with this sourced information in their place:

As Postmaster General, DeJoy released a comprehensive 10-year strategic plan for the Postal Service in March 2021 entitled “Delivering for America,” which is intended to reverse long-term financial losses and improve service performance.” (Source: https://about.usps.com/what/strategic-plans/delivering-for-america/) USPS Communications (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

June 2021
Welcome to Wikipedia. Because we have a policy against usernames which give the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website, I have blocked this account; please take a moment to create a new account with a username that represents only yourself as an individual and which complies with our username policy or request a change of username. You should also read our conflict of interest guideline and be aware that promotional editing is not acceptable regardless of the username you choose. Additionally, if your contributions to Wikipedia form all or part of work for which you are, or expect to be, paid, you must disclose who is paying you to edit. Please also note that you are permitted to use a username that contains the name of a company or organization if it identifies you individually, such as "Sara Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", or "FoobarFan87". If your username does not represent a group, organization or website, you may appeal this username block by adding the text at the bottom of your talk page. You may simply create a new account, but you may prefer to change your username to one that complies with our username policy, so that your past contributions are associated with your new username. If you would prefer to change your username, you may appeal this username block by adding the text at the bottom of your talk page. Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. Thank you.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, USPS Communications. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * We appreciate your effort to be transparent; in general, though, usernames that represent organizations are discouraged. We would not permit an "Exxon Communications" account either, in part because it's easy for someone who is not affiliated with an organization to create a malicious account. While I understand that this isn't the case (I hope), username and copyright policy demands that the account represent an individual. Besides, the use of "we" in your editing suggestion still implies a group effort. Please choose a new username that reflects an individual role (it doesn't have to be a real name).
 * Please also carefully read the guidance on COI, both in terms of clarity, and editing. Your suggestions should be made on the relevant article talkpages. Nobody will notice them in userspace, and you will be required to make your affiliation clear.
 * When you make suggestions, you will need to reference those suggestions to reliable third-party sources in major independent media with a reputation for fact-checking. Self-sourcing or official pronouncements are discouraged, as the goal of Wikipedia is to reflect reliable independent journalism and scholarly sourcing, not an organization's views about itself. Again the example would be: do readers need to be presented with what Exxon would want to say about itself, or are they looking for a detached perspective? The USPS and Exxon have their own websites to present their information as they would prefer. Wikipedia isn't a mirror of what an organization wants to present, or how it wishes to be perceived.  Acroterion   (talk)  

You are correct: this is a group effort with no malicious intent, which would seem clear since we are not intending to directly edit. The signup was made through my work email, which I assume is verifiable by Wikipedia at any time.In this capacity, I represent the United States Postal Service. However, putting my name on this is uncomfortable for two reasons: 1) I am a former member of the national media now working with USPS, but retaining journalism ethics and *I did not write these materials.* Therefore, I cannot put my name to it. I was merely asked to correspond with Wikipedia and provide helpful factual information and links. "Cut, paste, post." That's all. 2) There is another staffer who might be switched in, but she is on leave for the coming month. When she returns, we may choose to turn the account over to her, thus providing a seamless, no-distraction experience that is transparently USPS's voice. Since the language and links are being organized by a group within USPS Communications, the username is entirely appropriate. To state otherwise, or to put only one name on it, would be misleading. Like all federal agencies, we have an office of Ethics, which requires USPS employees and representatives to be clear about such communications. Again: our ethics office requires us to be very, very clear about our involvement in these suggested edits and what edits we are ethically able to provide.

Regarding posting media links from a "reliable third-party sources in major independent media with a reputation for fact-checking," I would point out that the United States Postal Service is the most trusted brand in America. We are the most trusted, and popular, federal agency. Further, all USPS links to be provided (again, for your review) have been thoroughly reviewed and approved by the Office of the General Counsel of the U.S. Postal Service. Every line is completely accurate or it is omitted. We aren't trying to start arguments. We are trying to resolve misinformation after a year of disinformation about our agency. Relying on third party media links after such a year seems extremely unhelpful to resolving factual issues.

Further, the Postal Service has 644,000 employees. They are proud of their work. Many of them may have twitter handles such as "JoetheMailman" or "LeslieAnn_CarriesMail" or possibly even "Martha_USPSCommunications." There is no way to know who is behind such accounts. I am requesting being able to designate our communication as an official account for our use in order to set these clarifications apart as coming directly from the USPS corporate communications office. I requested this username in good faith, to represent this effort being made on behalf of our corporate communications leadership, hoping it would be the correct designation of transparent efforts being made in good faith by a federal agency; and would respectfully request that it be allowed for use. There is no interest in vandalizing pages, as I hope should seem clear by now, and want to work with you to provide facts, hence some links will be to USPS "Factsheets" rather than media outlets, as it would seem better to have the Postal Service answer for itself rather than rely on media, or others speaking about USPS.

USPS Communications (talk) 03:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Some additional notes to the above:
 * I have not reviewed the paragraphs that you have asked to be removed, however, if they are in the lead of the article, it is likely that they are sourced farther down in the body of the article. See MOS:CITELEAD - it is possible that sources used later in the article simply need to be re-used in the lead section, rather than deleting several paragraphs of that section, as you have requested.
 * Your comparison to "official" or "verified" Twitter handles is not applicable. We rely on the quality of the sources, not the authority of the contributor - comments on Talk:Louis DeJoy by "User:LeslieAnn_CarriesMail" are no less welcome than those from any other editor; however, they also have no special authority.
 * On sources: USPS "Factsheets" are a primary source, and as such represent the point of view of the organization that produces them. Media reports from independent outlets, taken as a whole, represent a more neutral and reliable source. See WP:PSTS. I have no lack of respect for the postal service (although I wish I didn't get quite as much unsolicited bulk mail), and if I have questions about how to use mail services, I'm sure that USPS materials would answer them. However, when it comes to political appointees, it is much better for our purposes to rely on independent reliable sources.
 * I hesitate to mention this, since it frankly does not matter, but we have no way of knowing whether you are truly authorized to represent the United States Postal Service. Anyone can register an account with any name, as long as that name isn't already taken. That is why this username won't do you any special service. Again, even if you can prove this, it doesn't matter: it would only confirm that you have a conflict of interest, and would not give you any special authority or control over the content of articles related to your company.
 * If I may make a suggestion, your department may have a better time working with our volunteer response team via email. We have a private ticketing system, which may be more helpful to you than this talk page. The volunteers there will not simply make edits on your behalf, however, if there is negative material that is not sourced anywhere in the article, or if you have other specific concerns, they may be able to have a deeper discussion with you about that. ST47 (talk) 07:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * And further to my comments and ST47's comments, Wikipedia is a tertiary source, relying on independent secondary journalistic and academic sources for verifiable content. There are several reasons for this. First, it allows readers of the necessarily brief encyclopedia article to see, review, and use the cited content for further reading or research, as one would in an academic paper or in a properly footnoted and cited book. Wikipedia is a starting point for research, and that transparency allows readers to clearly understand the provenance of the information. Second, Wikipedia relies on those sources to make assessments of the veracity and context of the official statements of an organization. Directly-used official pronouncements are of limited utility and are to be used with great care, in context, and attributed in-text. And third, Wikipedia explicitly represents a consensus of mainstream thought in those reliable secondary sources. See WP:PSTS, WP:V and WP:NOR for in-depth discussions of these concepts, which are fundamental principles of this project..
 * As ST47 correctly notes, the content you want to change is in the lead summary section of the article, which compiles the sourced information in the body of the article. You must work with the body of the article and its references first, not the other way around, and you will then understand why the lead says what it says (or that the lead doesn't reflect the sourcing and needs re-writing).
 * Comparisons to Twitter, Facebook or other social media miss the point. Wikipedia is a collectively edited encyclopedia, not social media. Recent articles on Wikipedia's 20th birthday and the ability of Wikipedia to resist the woes of social media have specifically focused on the differing ways in which Wikipedia manages its content, compared to social media.
 * Wikipedia always welcome factual corrections, but they must be verifiable by reference to reputable, independently-published material, not to the views of a single editor, or the communications department that works for the subject. You must be prepared to cite secondary sources.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)