UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Community Sysop Demotion

Discuss, ladies and Germs fans. --WanYao 21:34, 18 July 2009 (BST)

Power

The community needs it. I am all for stopping the current system that pretty much grants sysops status for life. It should be possible for the community to force a sysops to get re-evaluated through the A/Promotions system. --Thadeous Oakley 21:58, 18 July 2009 (BST)

Reasonable.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 22:26, 18 July 2009 (BST)

The way I see it the actual problem is the very idea that it is a promotion in the first place. It is not, it is a sign that other wiki users think you can be trusted not to abuse additional responsibilities that you have volunteered to take on. Rather than a system for "demotion" I think it would be better for all sysops to face automatic reviews on a schedule not too dissimilar to the Crat elections. --Honestmistake 22:27, 18 July 2009 (BST)

Maybe stagger it so that every six months all sysops who have served more than 6 months and aren't bureaucrats go through a reaffirmation of confidence? --Darth Sensitive ^W! 22:36, 18 July 2009 (BST)

The problem there might be that we need to vote yes/no on like 7 different sysops in one row.--Thadeous Oakley 22:53, 18 July 2009 (BST)

The idea of a regular sysop "review" has been shot down too many times before... This is something a little different: it's not an annual report, it's a procedure specifically for recalling/demoting sysops who have lost the trust of the community. Nothing more, nothing less. --WanYao 23:02, 18 July 2009 (BST)

When? If you are talking about mine I withdrew that on my own. It wasn't shot down at all.--– Nubis ^NWO 23:10, 18 July 2009 (BST)

POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!!!!!!!! --DOWN WITH THE 'CRATS!!! | Join Nod!!! 23:38, 18 July 2009 (BST)

i ;iekes giviong peoples power bnut thi s smells funny to me. DUNNO why but i'll be sober dtommowew qnd reply the n . kthzbai -- Cheese 03:00, 19 July 2009 (BST) P

you have a way with words cheesy <3 --xoxo 15:35, 19 July 2009 (BST)

Voting

I hate voting. You can not make voting fair. If you say there are edit requirements before you can vote in a sysop demotion then that's unfair to new users and the requirements would have to be strict enough to matter. If you don't limit it in any way then you can get meat puppets. If you make it required to be justified then you get the risk of LOLZ DO NOT WANT or other shit. Even with the cooling off period (which I think more policies need) you can not make demotion a popular vote. --– Nubis ^NWO 23:10, 18 July 2009 (

I actually tend to agree with you as regards a straight vote. I am not against some pretty harsh voting requirements but at the end of the day I would prefer a method that left the final decision to the serving Crats, they already have final say on sysop promotions so its not really a stretch and should hopefully give unpopular sysops a court of appeal if they feel they are being ousted only because folks don't like the rules. --Honestmistake 00:21, 19 July 2009 (BST)

As I keep saying.... it's patently obvious, nubis, how you loathe and look down on the average wiki user... they're not as smart or capable as YOU, and certainly can't be trusted with ANY power or responsibiliy, not like YOU can be... and they certainly can't be trusted to make the right decision to demote a shyte sysop, nope, NEVER. See, this kids is why unrestricted "self-policing" a bad idea... in the real world, and in wiki-land. This kind of self-serving arrogance needs some kind of checks and balances. --WanYao 03:39, 19 July 2009 (BST)

Can you actually try reading things instead of getting all WIKI SYSOP RAGE RAWR!!!? I want a fair voting policy. Do you not recall that I have written policy on sysop reviews including demotion procedure (based on Misconduct behavior rather than popularity)? But if you really think popularity is more important than actual contributions please feel free to RAGE on. I remember you whined about my policy saying it was too complicated. So, I guess you really do want things the easy way?--– Nubis ^NWO 03:14, 20 July 2009 (BST)

What Nubis said. Any policy should be based on misconduct, not on popularity - like in Nubis' misconduct policy. Linkthewindow  Talk  08:51, 20 July 2009 (BST)

Oh and thanks for edit conflicting me to say much the same thing boxy.... bloody pest :( --Honestmistake 00:21, 19 July 2009 (BST)

A few voting requirements wouldn't hurt. Total time on the Wiki/minimum edits, something like that. I'm against leaving it up to the Crats.--

| T | BALLS! | 00:34 19 July 2009(BST)

Common sense, if we're trying to pry some of them out of office why would we let them have any say in how this policy is written and implemented --DOWN WITH THE 'CRATS!!! | Join Nod!!! 00:36, 19 July 2009 (BST)

It's up to Wan as to how this policy is written. If you want your own, go make one. I'd love to vote on what you two idiots come up with -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 00:43 19 July 2009 (BST)

I think what Wan has come up with so far is good --DOWN WITH THE 'CRATS!!! | Join Nod!!! 00:47, 19 July 2009 (BST)

So we're supposed to limit "discussion" to yes/no? Sounds more like voting. This must be an example of that vaunted "maturity" I keep hearing about. --

| T | BALLS! | 00:56 19 July 2009(BST)

No, you're not limited to yes/no. Yup, this is my policy, but I made this page for discussion and development. it's a little like Talk:Suggestions... except, as you can see, less civil... ;P Anyway, "voting requirements" are no more or less necessary here than they are for any other policy or 'crat vote. --WanYao 03:30, 19 July 2009 (BST)

Ah, thank you. I thought voting requirements might cut down on dealing with sock/meatpuppet issues. At any rate, thanks for drafting this up. I'm all for it. --

| T | BALLS! | 03:38 19 July 2009(BST)

I understand your point... but how should this be any different than 'crat promotions or other policy votes? Those don't have special voting req's do they? I think voting req's needs (yet another!) seperate policy. --WanYao 03:45, 19 July 2009 (BST)

I love it how you're all for democracy, but then state that an entire portion of the community shouldn't have any say in how a policy is written. Linkthewindow  Talk  09:35, 20 July 2009 (BST)

What the hell are you talking about now??? --WanYao 13:53, 20 July 2009 (BST)

Imthatguy's "Common sense, if we're trying to pry some of them out of office why would we let them have any say in how this policy is written and implemented" quote. --ϑϑℜ 13:55, 20 July 2009 (BST)

I think what he meant was a popular vote should determine demotion rather than a ruling by the sysops.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 00:32, 21 July 2009 (BST)

Simple reevaluation

I support reevaluation rather than a poll (which is too easily abused), overviewed by the 'crats. The sysop should be allowed to choose their own timing, as long as it's within a certain timeframe. Current crats would be immune (because they've already been through a poll approving of them). There needs to be significant community disapproval before demotion. Plenty of sysops have already put themselves up for reevaluation successfully, showing that if you're doing the job the way the community wants it done, it's easy enough to get reapproved -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 00:19 19 July 2009 (BST)

No --DOWN WITH THE 'CRATS!!! | Join Nod!!! 00:25, 19 July 2009 (BST)

Brilliant counter! That was so informative and intelligent, I don't think any of us ever need to hear from you again!--SirArgo ^Talk 00:25, 19 July 2009 (BST)

Duelists --DOWN WITH THE 'CRATS!!! | Join Nod!!! 00:33, 19 July 2009 (BST)

Rebel without a clue -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 03:32 19 July 2009 (BST)

Combo of Tiny Yapper and Palooka. Just won't die or shut up.--SirArgo ^Talk 03:54, 19 July 2009 (BST)

I think you dont see what this policy is about boxy, as for argo.... hes just pissed that i killed him in game a long time ago --DOWN WITH THE 'CRATS!!! | Join Nod!!! 05:04, 19 July 2009 (BST)

No, boxy. It was exactly to circumvent the deeply flawed concept and practice of "self-policing" that I made this policy draft. I tried to think of some way to bring the 'crats into the equation... but other than completely dispensing with the central idea that the community finally gets some power to demote sysops who've lost their "trusted user" status, I couldn't/can't see how to do it. And I've intentionally made it hard for a sysop to be demoted exactly to prevent abuse of the policy. To get demoted by the community in this way you must have REALLY screwed up and lost our trust... and if you've screwed up that badly, you really shouldn't be a sysop anymore. --WanYao 03:52, 19 July 2009 (BST)

Self policing in this manner doesn't work at the moment, because crats are restricted to only demoting after clear and extremely serious misconduct is approved by the other sysops. Making it a formal reevaluation where the communities views are required to be considered is a whole new concept. Hell, if the community wanted to get rid of a sysop now, they should be able to start a vote to show clear community will and the crats would have to act if the result was clearly that the community had lost trust in a sysop -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 04:22 19 July 2009 (BST)

Actually, it's not. You'll note it wasn't a vote, but a forced re-evaluation of a sysop by the Bureaucrats, complete with community feedback, much like you are suggesting. Honestly, it could be dusted off, have the inactive sysop component removed, and put up as a new policy (due to the removal of the inactive sysops component). It follows the current guidelines of sysop nomination, but as a re-evaluation. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 00:28, 21 July 2009 (BST)

And your other proposals are more of the same: trusting to effective self-policing. Plenty of sysops have put themselves up for reevaluation... yes... and good on them. But we shouldn't have to sit back and wait and hope for any old sysop to decide to do this, when and if they feel like it... We should have a bit more say in the who, what, why, how and when. --WanYao 03:57, 19 July 2009 (BST)

Fair enough, but still, voting is very easily abused, and adding strict voting requirements will just make the re-evaluations seem elitist anyway... If, for example, you made requirements similar to "1 month in community" and "100 edits prior" etc. --ϑϑℜ 04:01, 19 July 2009 (BST)

You don't have to sit back and wait. There would be a maximum time limit as to how long any sysop can go without a reevaluation (or winning a crat election). This simply means that such reevaluations will be based on medium/long term behaviour, instead of single incidents. We don't want a situation where demotion votes are called for single bad decisions, but rather to get rid of a sysop if they are making consistently bad decisions -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 04:17 19 July 2009 (BST)

Am I seriously insane, or haven't we been down that path before? I seem to recall several very heated discussions about periodic reviews of sysop-ship... More than just one proposed by Nubis. And for reasons I honestly don't recall every one of them got shot down or withdrawn. I'm all for bringing that idea back... But... still... it leaves the self-policing thing ultimately intact. I want the community to have some way to bypass the closed self-policing circle, if necessary. --WanYao 05:12, 19 July 2009 (BST)

Votes are far too easily abused (which is why A/PM is a discussion instead of a straight vote.) That's a problem with internet voting itself, not with the policy. I wouldn't be against this if the crats where edited in (yes, I know of the potential conflict of interest here.) Making it just like another A/PM bid would shield against meatpuppets, etc (and add "Bureaucrats must demote a sysop who shows a major lack of support from the community" to prevent the repromontion of very unpopular sysops.)

Also, sysops shouldn't face demotion over single bad decisions (as Boxy said above.) This policy makes this somewhat likely (especially for unpopular sysops,) and just adds to the drama around any misconduct case. I would be more likely to support this if a line similar to "a sysop must have had X number of misconduct cases that closed misconduct to be considered eligible for demotion" A sysop shouldn't be demoted just because they are unpopular, they should be demoted for constant misuse/mistakes using admin powers. Linkthewindow  Talk  12:41, 19 July 2009 (BST)

Problem is that you're proposing yet another method of self-policing. And my point is that self-policing just isn't good enough. In the real world, or on the wiki. This policy has been very specifically designed to avoid kneejerk demotions. First of all, a significant portion (75%) of voting For/Against users must call for demotion. Secondly, there is a 1 week cooling off period before the actual voting actually starts. Given these safeguards it is incredibly implausible that a sysop will be demoted for screwing up once. However, the policy does give the community the power to demote sysops who've lost the trust and confidence of the community. I'm all for making changes the policy as i wrote it. That's why it's up for discussion here... but the changes you're proposing completely castrate the intent and method of the policy -- namely, to give a solution to the question "Who watches the watchmen?" --WanYao 17:00, 19 July 2009 (BST)

"Peace, Bread, Land. All power to the Soviets". Even if 100% Of users Agree on an idea it does not make the idea an inherently good one. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 12:13, 19 July 2009 (BST)

Rah rah Rasputin! --WanYao 17:00, 19 July 2009 (BST)

Meatpuppets

As it stands this policy asking for meatpuppets. Making it a vote is an idiotic idea as people can just call on their friends to get it over whatever arbitrary guideline we set (this especially goes for unpopular sysops.) Again, this is a problem of internet voting in itself, not specifically of this policy, but when we're talking about a demotion (especially since demotions are (understandably) seen as pretty serious,) we really can't afford to take any chances with meatpuppeting.

In short people can just call on whatever group they are in/their friends to get the vote over 75% (it's happened before) and thus ruin any "democracy." It's why we discuss promotions instead of outright voting on them (see: Polling is not a substitute for discussion for another community's approach to this.)

Although I do understand your motives for trying to get past the "closed policing circle" this policy is just opening a huge hole for meatpuppets. Linkthewindow  Talk  08:40, 20 July 2009 (BST)

3 months since first edit, over 100 edits. bang no problem. --xoxo 08:44, 20 July 2009 (BST)

Won't solve the problem. I'm not talking about blatant meatpuppets (as in this case) but more wiki users who have enough edits from updating stuff (danger reports, suburb news, etc,) but really aren't part of the wiki community (as in this case.) Users who make enough edits to pass voting guidelines but aren't part of the community (and hence will know very little about the sysop in question) are the real problem with the policy, not one-edit throwaways.

Also, voting restrictions, even in very mild forms have been rejected. It's a dead end for solving the problem. Linkthewindow  Talk  08:49, 20 July 2009 (BST)

Will respond to this later :P --xoxo 08:51, 20 July 2009 (BST)

If you want to get around the simple socks, you can impose a minimum time/edit number on voters. But how are you going to get around the meat? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 13:12, 20 July 2009 (BST)

Exactly the problem, and exactly why this shouldn't be a vote. Linkthewindow  Talk  13:17, 20 July 2009 (BST)

You call it meatpuppeting. I call it the wiki equivalent of political parties and like-interest voting blocs. Nothing wrong with political parties.

But I suppose in your minds democracy is a lot worse than a small clique having essentially carte blanche control over the wiki. Sometimes you people are unbelievable. --WanYao 13:24, 20 July 2009 (BST)

Kevan disagrees with you. --Cyberbob 13:29, 20 July 2009 (BST)

Strawman. --WanYao 13:32, 20 July 2009 (BST)

What? Complete irrelevancy aside, he makes it even clearer that he does not agree with your position on meatpuppetry on that policy's talk page. --Cyberbob 13:33, 20 July 2009 (BST)

Quoting your flawed interpretation of The Gospel of Kevan is not an argument, cyberbob. --WanYao 13:49, 20 July 2009 (BST)

Uh, he didn't veto the policy because it was meatpuppeted, he vetoed it because he didn't like the part of it that basically endorsed meatpuppetry. That's what the veto text said, and his other post on the talk page backs it up and clarifies his argument. There's no interpretation required here at all. --Cyberbob 13:54, 20 July 2009 (BST)

Actually, yes there is an interpretation required here. An historical one.

These blokes from this board called somewhereanonymous, or someoneaphidlike, or something... Goons they called themselves... Anyway... they came into UD with the declared intention of "breaking the game". Part of that "mission" included to break the wiki. So, they made some ridiculous and absurd policy and then got all their buddies to register and vote for it. Well, Kevan knew exactly what was going on and put a stop to it. This is the only time he has ever done that. Under these very unique circumstances.

However... there have been numerous other situations where people have "meatpuppetted"... for example, very often the calls to vote posted in barhah.com... Well, Kevan's no idiot, and I am certain he knows how the real world of non-real-world wiki politics works. And he has NEVER expressed any concern with any of those "meatpuppet" votes.

So your attempt to bring The One True Name: Kevan into this discussion doesn't really cut it. However.... if you really want to be sure... why don't you ask him yourself? Go on... if you're so sure he's on your side, get some confirmation... --WanYao 00:36, 21 July 2009 (BST)

But since we're on this subject, this is what K had to say about that veto:

• "Yes, abusive vote striking is bad, and we should improve the rules against it if they aren't working. Yes, we should deal with any sysops who are exploiting it. I vetoed this policy only for the tenuous clause about all levels of meatpuppetry being totally acceptable on policy votes, which would obviously be exploitable by any single game group that wanted to get their own way on the wiki. (emphasis added)
  

There, sir, is your answer. Nowhere do I see Kevan stating what you're implying he stated. Pehaps the nuance escapes you, but what he was talking about was that "tenous clause" about permitting "all levels of meatpuppetry". Very different from from him saying all forms of bloc voting are bad. Seems he neither agrees nor disagrees with me, really.--WanYao 01:26, 21 July 2009 (BST)

The beauty of this is that I called wanny out on his attempt to meat puppet that vote, yet there is no evidence ANYWHERE that any goon tried to meat puppet a vote. Yet it always comes down to GOONS BAD!!! -- #99 ^DCC 02:08, 21 July 2009 (BST)

Explain the difference between meat puppeting and block voting. This ought to be good for a LOL.-- #99 ^DCC 02:10, 21 July 2009 (BST)

Recruiting your friends to give the appearance of a majority in favor of a proposal is different to political parties. Generally, the friends that have been recruited know absolutely nothing about the wiki, while bloc voters do have something at stake, and do at least know a little about the system. Meatpuppeting is indeed the perfect way to subvert a democracy by turning it into a friends contest, not who has the best solution. Unless there's simply no other way, a discussion is nearly always better then a vote.

And no, I don't have a problem with democracy. I do have a problem with voting (especially since there's a lot at state here,) being turned into a mere popularity contest. Linkthewindow  Talk  13:56, 20 July 2009 (BST)

I see now how my view of meatpuppeting differs from the sysops. Strictly speaking, a meatpuppet would be someone who was brought in from a different site to support a vote. However, if a user or group can recruit enough of their deadbeat wiki friends to register an opinion that should be fine.

Ultimately democracy is a popularity contest, by its very premise. We trust that the collective majority possesses a judgment greater than any of its individuals. The results aren't perfect, but they do reflect the will of those people who actually bothered to vote. And those results are ultimately more acceptable to the engaged majority than decisions handed down from on high.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 01:04, 21 July 2009 (BST)

Crats are the cats

Look, seriously, I don't see where this entire fear of giving Crats the decisions has come from. A vote is just such a stupid idea, and I don't think making sysops re-run is a bad idea at all, least through discussion as judged by Crats. I can't help but think those that are against this idea are overlooking the most obvious of facts:

1. Crats have no right to disregard overwhelming community opinion in Administration/Promotion matters. This policy wants 75% vote against a sysop? Imagine an equivalent to that in a community discussion on a user's nomination on A/PM and think how preposterous it would be for them to promote a user after such overwhelming negativity from the community. Now imagine that in a sysop-renomination. It wouldn't happen, especially if this policy stresses it (unlike Conn's idea of giving them certain "veto community opinion" rights).
2. Crats are voted on by the community anyway. Want Sysop X out? Is Sysop Y his buttbuddy? Don't vote him as a crat. That's how it's always happened, and Crats have always been voted in soley on their ability to treat the Promotions system in a trustable way. Did a crat just disregard community opinion as I said in point #1? Don't vote him in ever, ever again. He's obviously unfit to be a crat, lest a sysop. Now he's liable to be demoted based on his actions, it won't happen. And if it does, there are two crats, each with veto power. Unfair re-promotions? It. Won't. Happen.
3. So what if the community opinion is heavily split over whether a sysop should stay in position (many strongly for but many strongly against) and the Crat chooses to keep the sysop in instead of keeping them out? All it means is that the sysop gets a wake up call about their behaviour and they get ample choice at recovering the values that they were promoted for in the first place.

I trust the community, and having selective voting standards are much better than just having regular free-for-all voting, and I agree with this policy in the sense that it's correct implementation is a good thing, but I just can't go past the fact that the above users are just blocking their ears to the simple facts of the bureaucrat system and playing on other's words of 'conspiracy potential' more. Simply, I won't be supporting this if it remains to go through a vote. The entire policy is a kneejerk reaction, imagine the problems some sysops will encounter from the same reactions, as time passes.--ϑϑℜ 09:17, 20 July 2009 (BST)

This isn't a kneejerk reaction. It's something many people have been asking for for a long time, in one form or another. Yes consistently the sysop-y-types reject any movement for change in this direction....

But anyway... if you're referring to its timing, it's no less "kneejerk" than the timing of this. It's certainly no less "kneejerk" or off-the-wall than these. --WanYao 13:41, 20 July 2009 (BST)

Was that all of my message that you could bring yourself to address? Stop avoiding my point- You know, when you care to think about it, there is nothing to fear from having a system that is reviewed by Crats. Crats that are elected by the community based on their neutrality and impartiality. They are just as liable as the other sysops, given time, so why would they want to just cheat the system in front of the public eye? If we make this a vote, it will render the entire A/PM discussion system useless. --ϑϑℜ 13:49, 20 July 2009 (BST)

DDR is dead on here. Crats are selected by the community (except for when the Goons forced in Grim). Look at the last few Crat elections. The people that the Community trusted the most got the position. Unless you want to make all Sysop positions a forced vote renewal (which would mean every time you turn around you are voting on sysops) there really isn't a good way to change this (unless you go with the system based on Misconduct behavior).

Wan, my system of basing a review on Misconduct cases would clearly address your desire to review "bad" sysops. It's not like any of the active sysops haven't been on A/M for something. Try being reasonable. --– Nubis ^NWO 13:55, 20 July 2009 (BST)

You require successful misconduct cases iirc. I, however, don't trust the police to police themselves. That's the issue here, and it's not an unreasonable position. --WanYao 14:01, 20 July 2009 (BST)

It is when you continually decline to explain why, and with what evidence you take that position. I've given plenty of points and concepts that I think demonstrate why there is a lot less (than you think) to fear by allowing crats to police the sysops using the accountability of this policy, but you still fight with the long-known flawed concepts of voting. --ϑϑℜ 14:06, 20 July 2009 (BST)

It also gave a Minor Misconduct disposition which would be easier to get than a Misconduct vote. It could be changed to include those outcomes in the review process.After 3 Misconduct cases (declared Misconduct - "Minor Misconduct" does not count in this case) the sysop is then reviewed. This could be changed to address your problem with that policy.--– Nubis ^NWO 15:03, 20 July 2009 (BST)

Here read it again.--– Nubis ^NWO 15:06, 20 July 2009 (BST)

Dont let them fool you, they're just trying to cast doubt on a perfect demotion system --DOWN WITH THE 'CRATS!!! | Join Nod!!! 22:24, 20 July 2009 (BST)

So, DDR, if voting is so "flawed"... Why not dispense with it entirely? We'll just appoint the current team sysops-for-life. Then you can get rid of the "flawed" and "inefficient" systems on Deletions and everywhere else.

I don't think voting is anywhere near as "flawed" as you want to make out. So, no, I won't give up my position -- and we won't find common ground, apparently, because we have a very fundamental difference of opinion, at a very basic, foundational level. --WanYao 00:25, 21 July 2009 (BST)

tl;dr

I literally didn't even bother reading through the shit on the talk, I could barely force myself to finish off that paragraph you call a "policy". Yes, we in the RRF can make sure no survivor player can evar get ops! Whoo hoo, I've never loved the idea of meatpuppets more! Not to mention that little bit I read from wan when it comes to meat puppeting he's all for it! How's that for a kick to intelligence's nuts? Your policy sucks. Make a review mandatory of every op at set intervals of like 4 or six months. Don't bring out this bloc voting shit, because if you would actually think about it you'd know it wouldn't work in this community.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 21:03, 20 July 2009 (BST)

Well, if this went through the next policy would be block voting on banning users. Only next logical step after all.--– Nubis ^NWO 21:05, 20 July 2009 (BST)

yap.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 21:19, 20 July 2009 (BST)

i assume this section is directed at nubis? well, i didn't read the "policy" either, sorry, nubis but it was too long and convoluted. i kept mine short, simple and to the point on purpose.

but... okay... here's a straw vote... who's actually in favour, this time around, of a mandatory sysop review every six months. that is, six months after your confirmation, you must be re-confirmed. it's the normal procedure, except the discussion is only one week long -- and (!) yes the final decision rests with the crats whether to re-appoint the sysop.

(and also seeing as i'm part of the barhah.com community... nope, i don't have any problem when people post there asking other users to say nay or yay on various votes. i myself have made and answered such calls, both) --WanYao 00:19, 21 July 2009 (BST)