Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Kelly Martin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Moved support comments

One of two ArbCommissioners able publically recognize that Karmafist is fully "unfit" to be an admin. r b-j 02:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Failure to warmly welcome personal attacks from other editors is hardly grounds for dismissal. Maybe you should run. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 09:10, Jan. 9, 2006

Comment in response to [1]: Remember WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Cjmarsicano 20:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ineligible votes moved here

  1. Support. --Bumpusmills1 01:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Account too new, first edit on December 9th --Jaranda wat's sup 04:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support - A wikipedian who without doubt, is as trustworthy a person you could come across. Total support. Tmalmjursson Thor Malmjursson 01:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    User's 61st edit. Rules require at least 150. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 01:28, Jan. 9, 2006
  3. Oppose. Unilateral decisions (such as the userbox debacle); her vote on Punkmorten's Request for adminship; and her "tip" jar in her userpage. While I wouldn't suggest she is "buyable", I would avoid even the appearence of evil by not soliciting money while acting as an arbitrator. Ifnord 01:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Account too new (created 3 October 2005) - Mark 04:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Strongest Possible Oppose as shown in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin--Kf4bdy 02:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Only 98 edits. 150 required (before start of election) for suffrage. Ambi 04:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose - per scrabble - Wikipedical (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Account too new (created December 28, 2005 [2]). — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:30, Jan. 9, 2006
  6. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 03:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Account created in November 23rd, vote don't count. --Jaranda wat's sup 04:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Arkon 04:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Not enough edits for suffrage. This was the user's 139th edit. - Mark 04:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose, per the Sam Spade.--God of War 06:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Account too new (created 3 December 2005). - Evil saltine 06:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support David.Monniaux 12:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Duplicate vote (probably a mistake), the two vote diffs are: [3] [4]. --Interiot 04:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved Comment here

  1. As my Oppose vote was wiped from this page (I came back from not using Wikipedia specifically to vote here), apparently because of some rule about when you first register this account or some nonsense, I thought that I'd say here why I think that she should be removed. It is not about user boxes. In the end, who cares if user boxes remain or not? The issue is cover ups. You could say removing my vote from here is a cover up. Or you can say her pretending that she had nothing to do with the improper banning of User:Poetlister when she was actually the one behind it. You could talk about her covering up of other administrator errors, her abuse of User:Mistress Selina Kyle, and so many other things. Whilst its nice that she finally got caught out because of the user box scandal, this is far from a first offence for this serial offender. But as her Request for Arbitration showed, while she remains an arbitrator she is untouchable. Hopefully this is the first step towards her losing her administrative priveleges. Wikipedia doesn't need people like this. Its people like Kelly who destroy Wikipedia. And her covering up the truth makes Wikipedia in to nothing short of a fraud. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 07:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It's unfortunate timing, Zordrac. With 4,000+ edits we're all pretty damn sure you're not somebody's sockpuppet. A month ago you had more edits than me. But without (a) conclusive proof of sockpuppetry, or (b) inflexible age/edit threshholds of some kind, there would be no impartial way to keep the system from being gamed in one way or another. Without standards of some kind, such foul play would be inevitable and beyond control. Yes I do take a dim view of humanity, and no I'm not unduly troubled by it. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 09:02, Jan. 9, 2006
      • Zordrac, I don't suppose you could dust off the old account and use that one to vote express preference? ++Lar: t/c 09:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Long comment by User:C S

Long comment by User:C S shifted to the talk page by Mark on 13:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC):

Reluctantly oppose. She appears to have made many good contributions to Wikipedia and the community...BUT besides the concerns raised by Oleg (see #13), she has behaved inappropriately regarding her talk page. She apparently doesn't see that her stringent blocking policy (for users making comments she deems unsuitable) assumes she has a special right; obviously, I, a non-admin, would not be able to get an admin to block a user merely on my say-so, which is basically what Kelly Martin's policy amounts to. She also blocked an (allegedly) trouble-making user Mistress Selina Kyle for a "lie" which Kelly Martin said amounted to a personal attack. The lie in question was MSK's statement that a user had been banned from IRC, a statement that Kelly Martin later said was true but somehow still a lie since the ban was only temporary. --C S (Talk) 10:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
It "was true but somehow still a lie" because MSK claimed that the person was banned "permanantly from the chat room by Kelly's friend Ambi," when he wasn't; he was banned temporarily. I went and read this "stringent blocking policy" on her talk page, and the reality is it states users "making personal attacks of any editor other than [Kelly]," will be blocked. It doesn't say that people will be blocked for making comments "she deems unsuitable". Do you honestly blame her for not wanting third party cat fights clogging up her talk page? Sarah Ewart 06:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Sigh, thanks for catching that error. In any case, it's not the main reason I voted oppose. It's part of what I see as a larger pattern of behavior. As for her blocking policy, I know what it says. And in practical terms, it comes down to comments "she deems unsuitable". I don't even know of a single admin that agrees with the reason for the block, although I suppose there could be some. On the other hand, plenty of admins have voiced disagreement. Since Kelly does not have to get another admin to back her up by doing the block for her, what else does this really amount to? I don't blame her for not wanting squabbles on her talk page, but they do happen and one has to ask the question of whether blocking people in, at best, a controversial manner is really the way to deal with that. --C S (Talk) 07:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
There are other admins who agree with my policy regarding my user talk page. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't really see how you can equate her saying she will block anyone "making personal attacks of any editor other than myself, on this talk page" to a ban on comments "she deems unsuitable."
But anyway, now I wish to make my own long comment about Kelly.
I am noncommittal regarding a personal opinion about the block of MSK (and of the block warning notice AND that damn tipjar, though I don't believe it looks good) as I really don't know all the facts. There seems to be a lot of background to it which I have not personally witnessed. And I acknowledge that there are a lot of genuine people who are very sincere in their objection to some of Kelly's actions. I am not a friend of hers, so I have no vested interest either way. In fact, I have never even exchanged a single word with her. However, from reading the ArbCom pages and many of her other (non userbox fiasco related) comments, I believe that ArbCom is the best place for her. I agree with the contents of the email she wrote Jimbo last year. And it seems to me that a lot (not all) of the people who oppose her are merely being spiteful and are wanting to teach her a lesson. I believe Wiki is better off with Kelly on ArbCom than it is with her off it. At least, I have yet to see any evidence that would make me believe otherwise. I think people need to stop and ask themselves whether it is necessary to remove her from ArbCom or whether the backlash might have been enough of a reality check for her. It has visibly affected her and she has conceded some ground, stating: "Enough time has passed that an apology for not involving more of the community in a discussion beforehand would not be out of line; enough community support for a more moderate position exists to keep the radicals on this point under control. I still believe that the userboxes I deleted should have been deleted and should again be deleted, but I am not going to press the issue at this point as there is a robust and relatively civil debate on the topic now that will, hopefully sometime in our lives, lead to a conclusion. I had also misjudged the degree to which the community has become committed to process, probably because I don't have much to do with deletion anymore (an area where process has become arguably too important). For those two misjudgments, I am willing to apologize."
Also, I find it kind of amusing that there are people who object to her being on ArbCom due to actions she took while acting as an Admin, seemingly failing to realise that by removing her from ArbCom, she'll back to Admin full time. If they object to her Admin activities, but don't object to her behaviour thus far on ArbCom, it seems to me she should remain on ArbCom and not be put in the position where she is most likely to commit this "offensive" behaviour. Sarah Ewart 10:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and regarding the tipjar: I have high medical expenses (estimated at $20,000 this year, not nearly all of which will be covered by insurance), and I'm also trying to save up for travel to Wikimania in Boston. I'm not the only editor with a tipjar (in fact, I got the idea from one of my mentors, SethIlys, who has a paypal link on his user page). So far, I've received $16 less PayPal fees, from someone I met at a Wikimeet (and who may well have been compensating me for buying the food!), and that was less than my monthly pledge to the Foundation (I contribute $20 a month). Now, can we please stop making such a big deal out of this? Kelly Martin (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely not. -MegamanZero|Talk 21:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think Kelly Martin needs to defend the jar, despite the fact that she gives a good reason for it. No one has to donate if they don't want to, and it's her user page. I'm sure that donations to it have very little impact if any at all on her contributions. My vote for oppose was strictly regarding the RfC, and personally, I think these type of non-germane attacks only cloud the situation and distract attention from the real issues that are at stake here. -- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 22:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re-Add

Just thought I would note here that I readded my vote. Evidently I had only 138 of the at least 150 edits needed. That is no longer the situation. Arkon 22:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

  • No offense intended, but you might want to consider that the suffrage requirements are as of the start of voting. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
None taken. I'll repeat what I wrote to another editor about this. "While I would agree that you are most likely correct in your interpretation of the wordage on what you must have to vote....I am going to disagree obviously because I -do- want to vote, and being disregarded for a lack of 12 edits just makes my head hurt. So, I am going to claim ambiguity in the wordage used which is In order to vote, you must have an account registered on or before 30 September 2005 and 150 edits by the start of the election (January 9). There is no time stated, just a date. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. " Arkon 00:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
A novel approach. However, the first vote was cast by User:Doc at 00:03 UTC. That started the election IMMHO, unless you can contrive another novel point to make. :)-. Moriori 00:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm still sticking to the (January 9) date. Although I must admit this has gone from annoying, to rather funny. The arbitrary rules to vote in the arbitration elections, good times. Arkon 00:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Let me guess, you oppose Kelly Martin for -- how shall we precis it -- acting unilaterally, but will act unilaterally yourself by insisting that rules re elegibility for the election apply to everyone but you. Something like that? You are right, it has become rather funny. Moriori 02:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • That's a bit sharp, mate. Accurate, but sharp none the less. Surely you can understand how frustrating it would be to be in that position? And can't we apply some common sense here? We're not a bureaucracy, process is supposed to help us. And Arkon, you'd do much better with this crowd by arguing similary. There are few insults that carry greater sting around here that "wiki-lawyering", and you're skating dangerously close.
  • Let's just have the facts, and be honest about how we feel. Is there anyone else withing 15 edits of suffrage? Do we actually fear some sort of landslide of new accounts? Wouldn't we all be better off to simply make our votes, make out notes on the votes, and let it rest?
    brenneman(t)(c) 03:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Aaron, commonsense tells me that voters (in any election) require eligibility, which is frustrating for editors like Arkon who just miss out, but thems the breaks. If we didn't have and enforce guidelines for this election then why even bother with it? Yes, process should help Wikipedia, but flawed process never will. Your ref to landslide of new accounts is interesting. Surely it might cut both ways. Moriori 03:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • As to common sense, that's why I wanted to know what the distributions were like.
  • Landslide? Yeah, I was trying to trick you there. If you'd said "lots of new voters would oppose" I could have found a candidate with more new voters supporting... and vica versa. I'd have gotten away with it too if it weren't for you meddling kids! - brenneman(t)(c) 06:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
The sufferage bar seems to be 150 at the start of the election, which I think almost anyone would define as the exact moment that it says the election started, not somewhat later that day. I certainly can sympathise with being a few edits short, but if it makes you feel better, there is one editor that was at 148. That editor was denied sufferage too (or, rather, Cryptic marked his votes as being short of the criteria set). If 148 were allowed to slide, wouldn't that start a slippery slope ending up at 138, and then 125 and then 42 and then 11 and then 1 and then 0??? Again, I sympathise but from the moment I started editing here I recall the suggestions pretty clearly, anons should strongly consider registering. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 06:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Again, I absolutely can agree with your interpretation. But my objection to the arbitrary nature of these rules, the fact that I had no idea they were even in place (why would one bother coming to the page until they were ready to vote?), and the rigidness of these rules, are actually independent of that agreement. To expand on my complaint about the rigidness, I find it humorous that someone with 150 edits as of 12:00 is allowed in where someone with 150 edits at 12:01 would not be. Rules can be good, but only if they abide by common sense to a point. Hopefully, my bitching and moaning may help promote the idea of having a neat little notice next time this happens, saying what the criteria are in the same notice that the elections will occur. Arkon 06:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be taking me very wrongly here Moriori. Is my amusement not quite coming through in my obvious contradiction of agreeing with what you guys are saying, yet arguing that it shouldn't matter? Yes, I want my vote to count. Yes, I've made far more than 150 edits in my years of being here. Yes, it is funny (and annoying) to have my opinion discarded for a lack of 12(11?) edits. You seem to be trying to jump on the pile, while the pilee (me) is off getting drinks. Arkon 04:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Make mine an arf. Arkon, the gist of you saying "it shouldn't matter" is in effect saying "stuff the process", which is the reason many people voted oppose against Kelley Martin. It doesn't seem to be getting through. You want to stuff the process so you can vote against someone who said stuff the processs. A most peculiar sort of amusing.. Moriori 05:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid we are still talking past each other. I am not saying stuff process (I, unlike Kelly, don't have the ability to do so). I am simply stating my opinion that the arbitrary rules set forth for my opinion counting aren't very bright, not particularly well advertised, and evidently far too rigid (IE 11 or 12 votes away, missing it by a few hours etc). You seem to be making some pretty large leaps in your assumptions of my reasons for voting against Kelly. You would do well to cut out the Karnak routine.Arkon 06:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Let me quote you -- "I want my vote to count". As you seemed to have missed it, let me repeat -- you want to stuff the process so you can vote against someone who said stuff the process. Moriori 10:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Aaron, I replied on your talk page as well, but I think it bears repeating that this, if it is considered to be wikilawyering, has to be the most half-ass wikilawyering ever. Try to keep in mind the context and content of my complaint. (Jeez, I thought I went out of my way to be light-hearted about it while pointing out my annoyance.) Arkon 04:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
As far as the rule is concerned the elections started at 1 minute past midnight when I put the message on watchlists. Assumeing that you registed on the last day allowed it would take about 10 edits a week in order to meet the minium edit requirement.Geni 12:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Here's a possible out -- have you (Arkon) done any vandal fighting in the form of marking articles for speedy deletion? Or have you made any edits on articles that have been deleted? I know I marked probably hundreds of speedies before I became an admin. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆
JP, nah I don't think so, at least not on the actual account, but I don't know any way to pull that up. Besides I was an anon editor for well over a year. Can't count those either I would wager. Arkon 04:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I think the guidelines should be enforced. 150 edits is the bar. I guess there's no way to get a count of those edits that consisted of adding {{delete}} to a garbage article, is there? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
As of this timestamp, Arkon has 0 (zero) deleted edits [5]. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 04:07, Jan. 10, 2006
Wow! I haven't visited Kate's Tools in MUCH too long! Thanks! --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the rules are arbitrary, but rules are needed, and I don't see a way to make non-arbitrary suffrage rules. If we let one person slide, then we have no excuse not to let anyone else slide. ~~ N (t/c) 16:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Those rules are completely arbitrary and were hashed out with a near edit-war at the very last minute :) Nevertheless I say we stick to them now they're there, though I feel for Arkon. There are certainly good editors here who don't meet the suffrage requirements - take my wife for instance (not that I think she'd be interested in voting). Sorry, Arkon, the rule is intended to stop puppets and absolute beginners. You're the unfortunate collateral damage. - Haukur 17:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Where the cut off has been placed was somewhat arbitrary, but the existance of a cut off is not - there's good reasons to have a cut off somewhere and 150 is what was agreed. 150 ill considered edits are of course worth less than 149 brilliant edits, but that would be hard to automatically verify. Regards, Ben Aveling 20:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox oppose votes

I wonder how many people are voting "oppose" on this issue solely because of the userboxes? Many of the oppose votes even say this as such. It's kind of sad that so many users are letting little pet projects get in the way of a fair vote. --Cyde Weys votetalk 04:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It's kind of sad that so many users still believe that this issue is about userboxes. —David Levy 04:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. Dear Cyde, userboxes have long since been not the issue hear. -MegamanZero|Talk 05:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Alright, then what exactly is this about? Some kind of alleged abuse of admin powers? I'd like to hear about it, because most of what I'm seeing on the votes page is "userbox, userbox, userbox". --Cyde Weys votetalk 05:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Its been about the community disagreeing with Ms.Martin's behavior before and after the userbox incident. As I cited before, most users endorse her in her mass-deleting of disruptive userboxes. That's no longer the isssue here. -MegamanZero|Talk 05:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
The dispute began with the deletion of userboxes (rendering this term a convenient means of referencing the issue), but it escalated into an ordeal that should not be rehashed here. —David Levy 05:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. See the rfc for more info, as this isn't really the place to go in-depth about this situation. -MegamanZero|Talk 06:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Only (triple) edit conflict made you (two) beat me to saying that. Responded on User talk:Cyde - brenneman(t)(c) 06:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Ms. Martin's behavior as an admin, in the eyes of pretty much every that opposed/opposes her, during the userbox affair, is not becoming of someone who is supposed to be a neutral party acting as an ArbCom. --CJ Marsicano
Nose. Spite. Face. Sarah Ewart 06:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
As above, if you think the oppose votes are strictly about the userboxes themselves, you are grossly mistaken. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Ditto. It's not the userboxes, it's the massive disrespect for policy and community. Though I do like userboxes. ~~ N (t/c) 17:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I actually dislike most userboxes, but I unreservedly condemn Kelly's actions. —David Levy 17:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Please, desist this all of you. We've already proved our point; save it for the rfc page. Thanks. -MegamanZero|Talk 17:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
It isn't appropriate to transfer the in-depth "userbox" debate to this forum, but it is appropriate to discuss the rationales behind our votes (whether in support or in opposition). —David Levy 17:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding updated statement on userboxes

"I have had basically no opportunity to actually discuss the situation with anyone other than a few friends. Discussion on an RfC is expressly prohibited (although people violate this rule all the time); by adhering to this rule I have apparently offended a number of people who think I should have instead "discussed" the matter on the RfC. In addition, very few people have contacted me via my talk page, email, or IRC in an attempt to discuss the situation."

Talk Page: People attempted to discuss the issue with you on your talk page, but you moved the discussion to another page with the comment "Please do not make further comments here. Instead, make them on the RfC or its talk page." effectively closing off that line of communication. You made it clear you wanted no discussion of the issue on your talk page. No one is going to risk being blocked by going against that.

The problem is that people were debating amongst themselves on my talk page. My talk page is a place for talking to me. Extended discussions between two people who are not me do not belong on my talk page. -This unsigned response is from Kelly Martin

Email: Email is impractical for resolving a dispute involving hundreds of people. How would such a discussion take place?

One on one is a perfectly reasonable form of discussion. I've had a lot of one on one discussions since the start of this election. -This unsigned response is from Kelly Martin

IRC: Many people do not use IRC. People know that bringing discussion from IRC can get you blocked from editing or banned from the channel. Discussion is limited to whoever happens to be in the channel at the time so both sides may not be fairly represented. The communication is instantaneous so people do not have time to reflect on others' words and compose a thoughtful response.

The best opportunity you had to discuss the situation was your talk page. Please don't stifle discussion there and tell us now that no one tried to communicate with you. You essentially forced the RFC, a process which limits discussion. Mexcellent 23:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I've taken the liberty of bolding your responses to avoid confusion since they were unsigned and placed within my original comment. I see where people were debating amongst themselves on your talk page, which was certainly inappropriate. However, you don't have a problem with limiting other inappropriate behavior on your talk page by means of a prominent warning. A simple note requesting comments be addressed to you would have sufficed, instead you cut off all (talk page) communication on this matter. Communication is the key to resolving disputes; resolving disputes is the goal of the arbitrator. Regarding email: I agree with you, one on one is a perfectly reasonable form of discussion. The problem is that this was not a one on one dispute. It affected hundreds of people and brought forth too many underlying issues to be addressed through simple one on one conversation. Public matters require public resolution. Take care, Mexcellent 01:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
See my statement above as to why I felt public resolution was impossible. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
See Mexcellent's statement above as to why I felt you made public resolution impossible. Really, stop shifting the blame. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 03:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] An Update

For those who weren't involved in the crafting of these rules, I think you might find [6] fairly interesting. I'm not going to push any further, but this has upped my annoyance level. Arkon 03:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I move that the rules be ignored for YOU to have a vote even though you are not eligible. OK? You will accept the outcome of the vote? Moriori 06:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
That was just so charming. Arkon 20:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
As you keep banging on about this, you might expect others' annoyance levels to elevate also. However, on reflection I see it was a bit over the top, apologise, and have struck it out. Cheers . Moriori 23:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kelly Martin back in Arbitration Committee

In an underhand procedure, Kelly Martin has been given some of the powers of an Arbitrator again. See Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Clerk's_office. The "Clerk's office" was created a couple of days ago. - Xed 18:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. -ZeroTalk 18:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Ah-hum. Hell, even f'ing Austria doesn't re-use failed candidates that quickly, and I thought we were world-famous for that... —Nightstallion (?) 22:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I've put this new (and quickly made) policy on the village pump for comments. - brenneman(t)(c) 23:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)