My statement is reproduced here:

Yes, I realise that everyone else who is standing for election is filling their statement with abstract philosophical views, but I don't think that's the most effective and pragmatic approach. I intend to bring a (sorely needed) sense of humour and perspective to the proceedings of the committee. Perhaps then disputes could be handled more fairly and efficiently. Excessive seriousness and organisation can be counter-productive to any work. With work so important and serious as that of this committee, airs of seriousness or importance could be lethal!

Postscript: I noticed that all the other candidates like to note how long they've been editing. For the record I've been on Wikipedia since rather late 2003.

Second Postscript: In light of this advertising nonsense being pulled over the community's eyes in a sudden and unexpected flash, I'd like it be known that I am against it. This sort of thing goes completely against all the principles of Wikipedia. So many of us have worked so hard; I'm sure each and every one of you can think to how much you've put into Wikipedia. We can't let that be threatened at all. You can all be deadly certain of where exactly I stand on this issue, as a committee candidate. And, I suggest that unless you are glad to see the coming of this change, you don't stand around, but take real action.

Third Poscript, or, Talking Points:

Humour
Pragmatism & Effeciency
Down with advertising!

D. G. 03:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Would you be terrific, in your post? D. G. 02:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. There is no doubt about it, to be certain. D. G. 02:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Blah blah blither blather ArbCom? Andre (talk) 02:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ on that issue, Andre. Respectfully. D. G. 02:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What is your stance on the affirmative action taxation of gay marriage in the crack-addicted aborted baby military occupying Eurasian prostitution embezzlement organized crime church tort schools, and how will this affect your ability to arbitrate as effectively and ineffectively as you can and cannot? -Silence 06:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, naturally, I think we should see who can contribute more money to my campaign, gay crack-addicted aborted babies, or the Eurasian prostitution organised crime/schooling religious establishment. I think this will, unfortauntely, affect my ability to arbitrate extremely strongly. Namely it will increase it much, just as danger increases alertness. With the Eurasian tort threat always in my mind I will have my senses heightened to a level that I will become one with the cases I arbitrate and whir out verdicts like a mechanised verdict-rendering machine. Thus, I would be wary. Unscrupulous opponents of my campaign may try to destroy this Eurasian tort threat in order to sabotage my performance. D. G. 22:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How old are you and what do you do? (If student, please state what subjects you are studying.) --jguk 00:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm eighteen and I work for a real estate firm.
How many hours a month do you think you will need to be a good Arbitrator and are you really willing to put in the time? --jguk 00:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't think that if done right arbitration should really be an extremely time-consuming, extremely straining activity. It seems to me that if that's the case, something is being done wrong, something isn't being done effeciently, and something needs to be changed. I'm completely eager to change that, if it needs to be. And if not, then forget it. I think the answer to your question is "as long as it takes," whether it be four hours or ten hours or whatever it should eventually be, till the job gets done. If you rephrase the question in that way-- how much of the job am I willing to get done well? The answer is all of it, and then after that, that's it. D. G. 02:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If chosen, you will need to arbitrate on disputes arising from the creation or revision of articles. Experience of creating and revising articles yourself, particularly where it has involved collaboration, is very valuable in understanding the mindset of disputants who come to arbitration. With reference to your own edits in the main article namespace, please demonstrate why you think you have the right experience to be a good arbitrator. --jguk 00:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll elaborate on this presently. D. G. 02:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please list out what other Wikipedia usernames you have edited under. --jguk 00:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited under User:Not Wikipedia Administrator and under User:207.99.6.125, and I stand by my full edit histories. I encourage prospective voters very strongly to examine them personally, as they're the best way to get to know a candidate as an editor and Wikipedian. D. G. 03:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Being an arbitrator requires a finely tuned bullshit detector. What in your life has prepared you to detect bullshit with ease? Phil Sandifer 21:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually very glad you asked me this. More than anything else, having gone through the new jersey public schooling system has necessarily made me a brilliant expert at both processing and generating bullshit of any and every classification. In fact, if I could name only one thing I'm terrific at, it's processing and generating bullshit. In a more wikipedian context, I am sure that if you just take a cursory look at my edits you will find yourself rolling in bullshit. This should settle any doubts. D. G. 00:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]