Hastebin

I'll reply to the claims from top to bottom, first, referencing the claim, then following with an explanation:

> Your communication style is causing friction and alienating contributors.
It only does when the other party also matches this style. In the PDF you can clearly see that attempts were made, with communication style in mind, that had the goal of reducing friction.

Proof1: https://i.imgur.com/Cu3vbAa.png (compasion, rational)
Proof2: https://i.imgur.com/ubuei1i.png (counterparty not engaging into reducing friction)
Proof3: https://i.imgur.com/60J3MYi.png (actively seeking reducing friction)

> Dismissing concerns and lacking gratitude makes valid technical criticism feel like personal rejection.

I did not dismiss any concerns. In fact I replied to each and any concern that the counterparty has raised. Gratitude was shown multiple times.
Proof 1: https://i.imgur.com/3opCrPT.png (gratitude)
Proof 2: https://i.imgur.com/vyyW7j8.png (gratitude)
Proof3: https://i.imgur.com/S6cCtnt.png (showing how concerns are wanted to be addressed)
> To improve, separate technical critique from personal delivery and show empathy for the effort involved.
The emails were sectioned in paragraphs, where empathy was shown, personal matters was asked to be kept separate from technicalities
Proof 1: https://i.imgur.com/DO84Iyo.png (Pure mail to ask for separation of personal matter and technicalities)
Proof 2 & 3 analog to the above.
> I will quote some research source material for you
My specific problem with this done is that your quoted material does not support your claims, shown in the following:
> I've observed that you frequently demand proof when people call your communication "dismissive," but the behaviour itself is characterised by brushing off suggestions or invalidating concerns
I usually do not, but when there are thrown claims en masse without an actual claim, I can not simply throw back a counterclaim. In fact this is precisely what would count as dismissive or invalidating. Quoting your source: https://i.imgur.com/uFCVxQz.png
Instead I have either replied back with actual reason, or asked for backing the claim, not because I am interested in the proof of the claim, but because I want to show that there is no backing for the claim, and therefore the claim invalid. This is not dismissive, this is precisely the opposite of that as I actually read, get into the claim and reason logically, how it is invalid. Even this message in itself, is not plain baseless dismissing, its backed by valid and actual reason, properly counterclaiming yours. So you said "brushing off suggestions", "invalidating concerns". Now where is the source for that? Brushing off means, that you simply deny by say "no". invalidating concerns in itself is not a problem. If a concern has no reason or is shown to be wrong, it should and is invalidated.
> Other examples are like when you reply to reasonable curiosity with abrupt commands like "read the first sentence" or "move on," you are not correcting misinformation

Because what I refer to, is actually the right answer. It is full, doesnt require me to repeat, and avoids a discussion over what was already said multiple times. The first sentence said that they should simply "move on", this is not me saying to move on, this is me quoting the sentence. Literally, to you to, read the first sentence: If you dont know about what this is, simply move on, nothing actually changes, just a clarification post.

> You are actively shutting down engagement
Precisely. Read the sentence: "If you dont know about what this is". I shut down engagement, for those, who the drama does not concern. This is with absolute intention. Now do you see the target group? This is entirely different from somoeone, who actually knows or wants to know what this is about. Where did I dismiss or tell them to "move on" exactly? According to you I shut down engagement (for them).
 
> In your PR reviews, the focus is almost entirely on technical correctness. There is very little acknowledgement of the time and effort invested. I acknowledge you are trying to be succinct. But when you skip this step, even valid criticism feels like a personal rejection of the contributor's work. "Thank you for the effort:) I've reviewed and the implementation needs X because Y" is far more effective than just "I've reviewed and the implementation needs X because Y"

I dont know if you know about PRs, but GitHub is a pure technical space. Me and the counterparty have been messaging a lot via email and we both know how to speak to each other when and where. In fact, ive been grateful in emails and a lot of other topics or work in the past to them, but in that PR, time and place, this was not the correct place. Regardless, I did drop things like "I know this is a lot of work", and similar, showing empathy, AND even suggested a compromise where both their and the suggested/better technical solution would be present. In the email i even then mentioned that I can relate that that it sucks that some work is superseded by some better one, but in the email i also said right afterwards, that the technical superiority has to take presedence. This is a PR and there is no room for merging inferior work for emotional reasons.

Proof1: https://i.imgur.com/Cu3vbAa.png (compasion, rational)
Proof2: https://i.imgur.com/vyyW7j8.png (gratitude)

> You argue that you are being professional, but text-based communication strips away non-verbal cues. From my experience (and from independent research) abrupt or incomplete messages hamper effective communication and diminish credibility.

Professional and text are not mutually exclusive. Professionalism does not necessarily require non-verbal cues. In this case professionality shows by not letting your emotions play over yourself on a technical matter, reason and rational. Threats like the ultimatum in the email, insults, like done by quoting counterparties that have no idea about the technical requirements as seen in the PR comments and constant deviation from technicality to emotion is the exact opposite, which is precisely what counterparty has done. Counterparty even tried to make a point of "I worked in a professional field for 20 years and youre just starting" as if this would proof of his professionalism in the current moment. Proper sentences, with structure, reason and extensive explanations were provided in multitide in the PR review comments, over pages and pages.  

> If multiple independent users describe your tone as "rude" or "obnoxious," that is a consistent data point regarding how your message is received, regardless of your intent.
No it does not. The data is not unbiased. You hear the loud minority, in a space that is already influenced by selective content. Your data of multiple independent users is simply in wrong scale and not a consistent data point. In fact the entire drama is stifled by around 3+1 people. Haters exist in every space and this here is not an exception. But for every hater, there is a magnitute of supporters, which is precesely your fallacy of "consistent data point" here.

> Prioritising "being right" over "being collaborative" alienates contributor
You are basing this over the comments here. Here, these are not contributors. These are users who make allegations, bold ones, without any claim. Other users then either believe or miss context and join the flock, therefore a counterclaim is made. Not a plain dismissal like "No its not", like you initially claimed above, but one where it is proven that it is "not right". Being right and collaborative is not mutually exclusive. In fact, in the emails and the PR comments, I have been trying to collaborate multiple times. I have tried to explain to them, I have provided compromises, when they were emotional rude or unprofessional, i kept a calm tone and asked to keep technical. None of which was respected. 

Proof1: https://i.imgur.com/RlWIVbD.png
Proof2: https://i.imgur.com/4XVGJhI.png (dismissal with "i dont want it" and confirmation bias with "everyone" i have talked with (note here, he talked to those that are part of the circlejerk, from which he took a quote that was right out insulting))
Proof3: https://i.imgur.com/iMo91Rb.png (insults from uninformated circlejerk he quoted to show me, this is not collaborative)
Proof4: https://i.imgur.com/wLEqC85.png (Here is an actual justified dismissal of an insult, injected into a highly technical PR review)
> Showing empathy and gratitude does not make you wrong. It makes you a leader people actually want to follow.
Again, I showed empathy. I mentioned that it sucks that when you write code and sometimes you have to abandon it. I even went as far as choosing the less technically superior route of a compromise of keeping both solutions for this reason, but no. In the past I have written a lot of code that I had to abandon, for many reasons. I did not lash out, insult or threaten, but the counterparty as shown in the context has.
Now that I am done responding to your claims, lets come back and see what the counterparty has decided to do after my last, grateful and professional message to him: https://i.imgur.com/aGlec0L.png (farewell message):
Proof1: https://i.imgur.com/nVDQM9F.png (claims I am abusive, and do not appreciate his work)
Proof2: https://i.imgur.com/WmYcbAG.png (insults, calling equivalent developers sock puppets, confirmation bias)
Proof3: https://i.imgur.com/QFYZ72G.png (what did I accuse him of at the point of the time he wrote that exactly? Thin air?)
Proof4: https://i.imgur.com/ti3n6lC.png He copied ReVanced's code, squashed it under a new author, relicensed it under a new name, then calls me copying his code, where his name would be present under the commit, code that is licensed under GPLv3, and work that would have to be done regardless of his contribution (we would have to discard and redo the same work thats already done, this would be pointless). He closed his PR at the 90% stage and now tries to make it look like that everyone should expect us to simply write whats written, just for the sake of doing it? Note how he even said https://i.imgur.com/i8ziPTm.png "Accusing of what he is guilty of"? Accusing us to copy, then actually copy the code? The main issue isnt even that. The screenshot of what he wrote on top, is taken out of context and put on r/piracy for everyone to missunderstand and create a false frame. 
Ill be interested in what you say now.