User:Chairboy/Wikipedia:Treeism

When you fixate on a single perceived failing in another user, you might be cutting off your nose to spite your face. This is an aspect of "can't see the forest for the trees".

There are as many opinions on different subjects as there are editors on Wikipedia, so it is natural that friction will be generated. To disagree with someone on one subject and agree with them on another is equally normal. In fact, it is highly unusual that you would ever find someone with which you agree 100% in all regards.

If an otherwise good and productive editor has an opinion that you do not share, is attempting to torpedo their every action really in the best interest of the project? Take, hypothetically, a prospective administrator who, despite meeting every reasonable criteria and showing that he or she is sane and unlikely to start killing people. This user mentions, in response to a question from another user, that they have a differing opinion from you on a subject.

It's easy to take the offensive and immediately oppose the RfA. "For goodness sakes," you might say, "this person has demonstrated a deep character flaw through their disagreement on one point!" Unless that question relates to whether the candidate advocates the consumption of puppies or the answer contains an explicit statement to stalk and kill other editors, is working to sink the RfA on the grounds of that one issue really the best thing for Wikipedia?

An alternative strategy might be to consider just how egregious disagreement on the one point is. If a user has an opinion contrary to yours regarding speedy deletion, but has shown through their editing history that they are reasonable and civil in discussing disagreements, then the benefit of having another mop might outweigh the specific argument you may some day have.