There were all of these things. There just wasn't completeness - i.e. they didn't (yet?) ban every sub that was in "category 3" harassing people IRL. It was not arbitrary: those ones were actively harassing people. There were guidelines: they existed before, and she posted them in response. There was no inconsistency: subreddits failing to meet these criteria were not banned under this policy. 100% of people upset on these grounds are in the wrong.
Analytics showing brigading statistics would be dead simple. It would establish a clear, objective metric and back the notion of behavior, not ideas, being targeted.
I also kind of doubt objective numbers would justify the actual banned subreddits; I think it would show a lot of other ones were just as bad or worse, but weren't so unapologetically disgusting.
The main problem I think most people had with it wasn't that there was action taken. It's that it was arbitrary, there were no guidelines given, and there was no consistency.
If there had been a set of community guidelines published, a week given for moderators to rein in their members, and then the ban hammer had come down, I doubt anyone would have cared.
It was probably incompetence rather than malice -- same as firing Victoria -- but the fact is that there were arbitrary actions taken with no explanation, warning, or chance for people to prepare.