Occasionally I see people saying something along the lines of "It is better if people are pushed into doing an RfA." That means there's something so horrible about RfAs that people need pushing into it.
I also see people saying that self nominations are bad. But if people want to see a few admin endorsements or want to know that someone has taken a look to see if there are problems with the user - well if the candidate is good then there'll already be quite a few admins analyzing and giving their opinions in support.
What we really should be doing is encouraging anyone who has a reasonably long track record of clue and civility to nominate themselves - it should not require networking, knowing "who's who", or hunting for a nominator nor should it be a preparation for a trial by fire. That's the real problem with RfA - it either delays or discourages people who have a need for the mop. So useful mopping is lost.
People seem far more afraid of hat collecting - which really should be obvious from the editor's editing history if it's true, and obviously false if the person is doing good work - than losing out and discouraging possible admins. A self-nom or a nom that's early does not necessarily mean power-hungriness - all it shows that the person wants the tools, which is far more likely for useful purposes than for bragging rights.
Age
editAge is in my opinion one of the poorest oppose arguments. People do say that if someone cannot vote, then they shouldn't be admin - but the reason there is a general age requirement of 18 in countries is because people cannot be individually evaluated to see if they are mature enough to vote, while in RfA there is individual evaluation.