What kind of "difficult-to-work-with" questions do you ask? I'd like to filter out these people but I'm not sure what sorts of questions to ask to suss that out.
Tell me about the most frustrating time when you needed a thing, or consensus on a thing, and you had to go through way too much to get it.
Tell me about the most frustrating time when you needed a thing, or consensus on a thing, and no matter how hard you pushed, you never got it.
And, of course: The fastest way to be shown the door around here is to be an agitator of your colleagues on the grounds of race, sex, religion or any other attribute that has little to do with work. Nobody here is in the business of policing behavior and nobody wants to be. This requires perhaps more discipline than other places as the hammer falls harder and quicker here if things go awry, so it demands either heightened discretion or a heightened sense of self awareness and awareness of those around you. Do you think you would be able to work under such conditions?
Glad to see an article about trying something different in recruitment, it is a BS industry, partly because it is so difficult to measure "success" and follow up the process with meaningful data.
Actual quote from an interview ^
It's quite possible the interviewee thinks the item is worth fighting, but you don't because of different principles/axioms. Are you looking for a justification in this case?
On the negative side, you might have someone complaining at length about a bikeshed issue (see http://blue.bikeshed.com/), or complaining about processes they had to follow that sound reasonable to you (for instance, "one change per commit", or "don't break the build"). Or someone complaining bitterly that they don't get to use technologies invented five minutes ago.
It's a lot easier to get information about what people stand for and care about by finding out what they fight against.