This is a clear red flag that he has serious issues with autism or addiction, a distorted perception of what Wikipedia is for and what role the other carbon units have to play (Wikipedia doesn't exist to satisfy his need to grind, the other people are not irrelevances he can just ignore it he wants to, or if he otherwise finds it difficult to understand what drives them).
He is sticking by this idea that hypothetical questions are inadmissible. The inability to cope with a hypothetical, which requires certain mental visualisations and a level of empathy, of course being a trait of autism. Where he did answer in a detailed fashion (Q23), he did so with a cookie cutter explanation of what civility is, something that is easy for a person with such issues to do. But all that does is highlight the fact these considerations were apparently not in his mind when he answered Q5, and the follow-up Q21, which was placed to give him a chance to reflect on his answer to a specific, albeit hypothetical, situation, where he is supposed to put that cookie cutter text into practice.
His failures here merely feeds the suspicion that he is either not suited to Adminship for basic competence reasons, or he doesn't really think civility is a co-equal pillar. That even after promoting to help him see what the problem might be, he perhaps still thinks of those who enforce it as "going after" the good guys, who are only ever justifiably rude and can always be forgiven because "context". Which give more alarming similarities here with how someone with certain difficulties would view the world around them, this confusing and chaotic world.
If there is no deeper underlying issue which would simply make him incapable, if he is going to be making choices with the full and proper understanding of the world around him, then the very idea he is going to be the guy who makes sure people like Iridescent ever apologises or refrains from escalation, is laughable. He is going to be the guy who tells the victims of people like Iridescent, that they are meant to forgive him and turn the other cheek.
These are all massive red flags, clear signs that he is going to make bad decisions and further the erosion of civility, yet the majority still doesn't really give a fuck. Or they just don't see it.
Hard to choose which, without any hard data about just how many Wikipedians suffer from the sort of conditions and impairments I'm talking about. This isn't a situation where, if you have it, you can see it in others. It is a situation where they will see him as normal, and be totally confused (or even angry) that others do not. Where they all say things like this.....
The "stupid" question 5 was of course not placed by someone who cares about civility, carefully designed to catch the candidate out. It was placed by Ritchie, it was Ritchie's attempt to give this candidate a chance to show he has the sort of "clue" Ritchie likes, the willingness to downplay concerns over civility in a situation where treating it as a co-equal pillar threatens the interests of the established assholes of Wikipedia. That he passed this too successfully, by utterly failing to say he would addressing the rank incivility or personal attacks at all, was of course not what Ritchie was hoping for. It was, however, a good reminder of why Ritchie is such a problem for Wikipedia, why anyone he mentors or looks up to him, is similarly, going to be a problem.More level headed than some admins. Not impressed by the opposes based on stupid Q5. We need more admins. Legacypac (talk) 07:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)