I only rejected his out-of-the-blue implementation of something that already had very different plans around it. There is room for whoever doesn't disregard what the readme says:
"For code contributions, it's best to start out with modestly sized fixes and features and work your way up. There are so many different possible implementations of more major features – many of which would cause undesirable code or vision conflicts with OpenMW – that those should be talked over in advance with the existing developers before effort is spent on them."
You never came to the TES3MP server at all. You came to an unofficial server for Lua scripters and decided to tell everyone you were changing the C++ code to add combat events as you wanted even though the combat system was being redesigned at the time to use different packets. You had never spoken with a TES3MP developer before and ignored the readme's contribution guidelines, which simply asked you to start with one of many smaller possible issues instead.
If your idea of a "tolerant and positive mindset" is to immediately try to get scripters to follow a derailment of the plans of a project you have never contributed to and then keep complaining much later that you were told not to do this, it's safe to say the project is better off not having to deal with that.
Most of those bug fixes and complicated updates towards 0.47 were done by me on the work-in-progress branch, but you're pretending it's your credit somehow just because you took my unfinished work before I could do a release of it (mainly due to COVID-related problems).
If you're not interested in drama, perhaps you shouldn't start it so needlessly.
Also, nice edit to your comment. Here's what you said originally:
There wasn't anything rude or combative in asking you to allow TES3MP to catch up with breaking changes in OpenMW one at a time, especially considering you had never interacted with anyone from TES3MP at all.
Your attempt to take in many breaking changes at once resulted in what you yourself called an unstable and "truly hacky" build.
Consider why you feel the need for such hard unilateralism in your approach before you complain about others.
You're not "everyone", you're just someone who didn't read the contribution guidelines in the readme and still feels like complaining about it to this day.
If you are thinking of contributing, you should at least read what it says in the readme instead of pretending that not reading the readme was unfairly held against you:
"For code contributions, it's best to start out with modestly sized fixes and features and work your way up. There are so many different possible implementations of more major features – many of which would cause undesirable code or vision conflicts with OpenMW – that those should be talked over in advance with the existing developers before effort is spent on them."
This is incorrect. You decided you were going to do a unilateral implementation of a feature without discussing it at all. It was an anti-collaboration mindset from you.
"For code contributions, it's best to start out with modestly sized fixes and features and work your way up. There are so many different possible implementations of more major features – many of which would cause undesirable code or vision conflicts with OpenMW – that those should be talked over in advance with the existing developers before effort is spent on them."