Employers don't need zealots or evangelists, they need realists, and people ready to work.
Not prattle on endlessly about the latest fad.
Rust has some pluses. Yet the evangelism, with the "it fixes everything" lunacy circulating, taints rust, makes legitimate and sane advocates look like nutjobs.
I don't have the time to sort the wheat from the chaff, so when I see a big deal made about rust on a resume, odds are it's a zealot, and into the bin with 'em.
You are expressing widely different things though. You said you would consider out right rejecting someone and question their mental health for having rust on their resume.
Having a tool on a resume, or listing experience with tools, should certainly not be interpreted as someone being a rust zealot, evangelist, "pratting on endlessly", and all the rest of the examples you gave. So, maybe you initially wrote something different to what you actually meant.
I'm not sure to what extend you are being facetious, so I'll take it at face value. Rust doesn't particularly attract "crazies", and nor are software developers mostly crazies. So, I believe your criteria is exceptionally bad at filtering those kinds of developers out. Hiring good people is challenging enough as it is without doing the job poorly. My advice, unwarranted as it is, is to revise your preconceptions.
