Hi all, I'm becoming rather worried at the lack of consensus building on requests for adminship and other pages, with oppose votes basically saying "oppose, don't even think about asking why, no is no", and in some cases support votes being challenged and no response (however this is much rarer). This is incredibly damaging in my opinion as Wikipedia operates on consensus, and refusing to discuss not only shows a lack of regard for other people's opinions but gives an arrogant, superior attitude. I must say that I think that everyone who does not respond to a (good faith) questioning comment asking them why should have their vote/opinion on the matter disregarded. If they are not willing to say why they believe what they do then they should not be considered contributing to the discussion. Wikipedia is rightfully not a democracy where you can vote for whatever reason you like. Any position someone takes must be able to be challenged. I would like to see any bureaucrats making a judgement on a close RfA to disregard anybody's vote, either in support or oppose, who have not responded to a challenge for their reasoning. Chris -- Chris Jenkinson chris(a)starglade.org