This was very much drama for very little.
Sure, some might follow the project to know about updates, but if people care that much if they are using the latest version of a CLI tool then they will certainly check it out again later.
Very very few people of those who followed the project cares, and close to nobody cares what percentile the project ranks as by number of stars on github. Heck, even the author cares so little that he let himself mess around mindlessly while ignoring warnings and forgetting what the project was called.
Github warned about the action, and even required written confirmation to make sure it was the correct repo. The author also makes a point about naming being different for orgs and private, but if the github repo had any meaning then the author must have been very aware of what the name of it was.
Sure, github can add even more roadblocks and confirmations for those who are very careless despite all the warnings, but I don't want that personally. It's a tradeoff, and I think github has the right balance.
But sure, the situation is mildly annoying for those few who actually care.
But the dumbest part: The complaint about github not using time to restore backups to correct the mistakes of the author. Sure, they probably could, but how will they decide if a user should get special treatment? If they start bringing out backups for some users then there will be a lot of others expecting and asking for the same thing, and more.
Some might say that it won't be a problem, but considering that the author is already expecting github to restore their backups for him because github restored their own backups only proves the problem.