This post is about one of my guilty secrets. Yes, my guilty secrets involve the intricacies of boring moderation. I am weird like that.
There are times when I know (or highly suspect), by the letter of current site policies/practices, I probably should vote in favor of something: vote to Leave Open/Reopen a post, vote to Approve an edit, vote a LQP as Looks OK. However, being a human, I also have several deeply rooted pet peeves. Some posts, patterns of behavior, etc. I just don't like on a personal level. When these two things come in conflict, I typically abstain from the review by using the Skip option. If such a situation comes up outside of the queue (e.g. a user edits their question to be on-topic but fails to send it for review), I might not nominate for Reopening despite knowing I should. Note that this is in cases for which I'm not unsure of the "correct" action, I'm simply unwilling to carry it out.
Now, as a small site, we have few enough active reviewers as-is, and I know the mods can be reluctant to enforce their binding-vote powers. I am aware that by not allowing my vote to contribute to the review process, or by not kick-starting the review process by throwing my first vote in, actions on posts will likely be delayed, in some cases significantly so. In the case of failing to start a review process, the proper actions might not be taken at all, if none of the other actively moderating community members finds the post.
I've been wrestling with this for some time. Am I hurting the site by Skipping reviews on posts I dislike? Am I obligated to vote according to what is "right" by site policy? Am I way overthinking this? So I'm putting it up to meta (and not chat: I suspect answers might need to be longer than what chat is made for, this could get lost in the upwards scroll, and not everyone uses chat regularly).
I abstain from reviewing in favor of things I personally dislike; is this a problem?