This seems like a forced critique and is certainly an inequal comparison. Ajit Pai's words wouldn't apply equally to removal of the rules he was arguing against.

Saying, "this should be legislation" and then rolling back the rule when you're in control is not inconsistent.

This is weak. There are much better ways of arguing against Pai than than this.

According to the article, the behavior of Pai is such that he, e.g., asked for a widely held discussions about process, yet didn't do anything of that when got to decide.

That is inconsistent - in a sense that before he was arguing for debates as a cover of the process to try to get the results he was hoping for, and now he just sees easier ways to get them - so no cover is necessary.

There can be better ways to argue against Pai, but the problem is actually on a higher level - Pai is just a demonstration of the problem in a particular, separate area. So there are better ways not because we should focus more on Pai, but because of the opposite.