Well, perhaps this was not well done at RfA in the particular case. But the argument given is strange and pedantic, really. To take
"If the nominee fulfills these criteria, then it is Wiki policy that that person should be granted administrator access"
as the basis of an argument is pedantically strange. Does that mean that anyone who votes against is somehow breaching policy? Or even that anyone who fails to vote for is going against policy? I'm not a great fan of RfA votes, but the voting is a rough way of _determining_ who is trusted. Arguing that if you are in some abstract sense trusted then people have to vote for you is odd.
Charles