Even aside from DRY, extracting a block of code to a function or method gives you an opportunity to name the block of code, which often significantly clarifies the intent of the code so, I’ve always tried to error on the side of overly DRY
When I first took over maintaining Red Moon, I was a very new dev and went a little DRY crazy. In particular, there's a state machine for the different filter states (running, paused, stopped, etc), that had a bunch of classes (one per state) that had a lot of overlap. I pulled some common behaviors out into a supertype that the classes with those behaviors now inherited from.
Except, it turns out some of those states ought to act differently (automatic pauses in secure apps should disable the overlay but not restore the backlight; manual pauses should do both), and now it's going to be extra work untangling the various states and pause logic. If I'd left the state machine (amongst other bits) as it was, this feature/bugfix would be implemented already. Also, the current state of things (pun intended) is a bit less readable, in my opinion.
For instance, one piece of code is supposed to do the same thing as another, but in context it caused a side effect that some other part of the code was inadvertently relying on.
Sometimes it's better to have just a few separate, differently shaped pegs, than one flexible peg that fits any hole but is so complex that it might introduce 10 new bugs along the way.
In many cases, the opportunity for DRY was misleading as the code was only superficially similar, so the implementation became over-complicated to handle various corner cases that otherwise wouldn’t have existed.
