As to your first point, if the reverts were to get rid of BLP violations, I would support the person removing the BLP violations. Such biographies can have a serious impact on a person's life and social standing, so lies and unverifiable content in such articles cause far more damage than edit warring does. (This does not mean that I support edit warring on BLPs in general, edit warring over well-sourced information remains unacceptable.) However, FICT issues are not BLP, the damage caused by edit-warring and endless strife far over Pokemon outweighs the damage caused by breaching a notability guideline, so I cannot quite see the analogy here.
I don't think you have been stonewalling the WP:FICT discussion, and I have not opposed, nor will I oppose you, due to your views on what the content policy ought to be on that issue. Indeed, I think your approach there has generally been constructive. The opposition is based on how you dealt with the people who very strongly disagreed with your position, and the "vandal" comment, followed up with defenses of it being "civil" and then merely "poorly worded" worry me.
Regarding A Nobody, while I view that editor as basically constructive, he is fairly far off to the inclusionist side on the "inclusionist-deletionist" scale, and fairly far off from where I stand. (I consider myself somewhere in the middle on that scale), and who sometimes exaggerates in his complaints. Hence, while I listen to what he says, I generally don't accept his arguments at face value.
Kirill was very unambiguous that the "vandal" quote was the reason he proposed the topic ban, and the ban did attract support from other arbitrators as well, so I cannot see that he was a lone wolf here.  (Check!)