[I use a short hand where Fi/Fe "does" things and "thinks" things, etc. I know that really it's whole people to do things, and functions are more like the lenses through which we view the world.]
I agree that the article really fails to capture the nature of Fi, and think that it falls pretty wide of the mark. Both Fi and Fe can be connecting. They can also both be boundary enforcing and disconnecting.
Connecting
They can both be connective because they are both about harmonizing with people. Fi focuses on the harmonizing with a specific person (which might be the self) moment to moment. It tries to optimize its internal landscape and the particular interaction with someone else.
At its best, Fi can cut through social propriety and relate to the individual as the individual is in the moment, appropriate or not.
Conversely, Fe is better at harmonizing with across multiple people and across multiple interactions. It builds up networks of connection in which people know how they are valued and what their obligations are. Fe builds networks of connections that communicate regularly and communicate "you are important to me."
Disconnecting
Both Fi and Fe can be disconnecting and boundary enforcing.
Fi tends to defend boundaries based on personal space and personal values. While Fi is generally very tolerant, it will defend the small territory in which it feels free to act according to its values. It doesn't take kindly to well-meaning others who intrude into that space with a demand to do things their way, or who trod upon an important value. Since Fi values intent, it tends to be forgiving of inadvertent offenses, but there are definitely acts which are effectively unforgivable (or make the other someone with whom vulnerability is ill-advised).
At times, Fi can be unsparing of itself as it tries to live up to dearly held value without making room for practical considerations (either limits of the self or realities of the outside world).
Fe tends to defend boundaries based on roles (and level of relationship), obligations -- "obligations" feels like too cold a term, really -- and consistency. If someone else is too inconsistent or doesn't live up to their obligations, the other may be demoted from "close friend" to "friend," for example. If the other is wildly inconsistent and flaky, they may be deemed someone whom it is not safe to invest in and be close to.
If the relationship is a close and valued one, then Fe (like Fi) is perfectly capable of communicating its displeasure and disappointment. Feeling is not all about warmth and positive valuation.
Fe can be unsparing of itself as it tries to live up to all of its "shoulds." It doesn't matter what one's inner emotional state is (that's often distraction or noise unless the state persists), or what other demands one has on oneself.
So, no, I don't think Fi = easy to walk away from relationships, or easy to doorslam. I've certainly agonized about backing away from certain relationships even when I thought it was the best thing for all involved. I don't think Fe = connecting and Fi = valuing. They are both perfectly capable or connecting/disconnecting and valuing positively or negatively.
I agree that Fe is better at consistently maintaining a variety of relationships over long periods of time. It tends to be much better at tracking the momentum and trajectory of relationships, and remembering to check in periodically. No argument there.
Still, I generally find Vicky Jo's biases to be pretty transparent even when she's trying to be neutral. I don't think her material worthless, but definitely some rebalancing is required in order to glean out any useful bits.
tl;dr
Both Fe and Fi have their warm/approving/connecty, cold/disapproving/disconnecty bits. Simplistic and biased to think otherwise.
Addendum: I'm certainly capable of flagellating myself for a long period of time because of some relationship failure. There are some people I don't reach out too mostly because of remaining guilt for things done and things left undone.