Isn't it better to wait until all sides of the story have been told?
You cannot verify or falsify feelings. They can have different plausible origins. She present one origin, you say she is right. Yes, her side is plausible.
The worst thing here is that some of the origins can be offending to some of participants. You chose side that offends Github team.
Huh? Pretty much none of them are remotely innocent. They range from unprofessional to gross misconduct to potentially illegal.
Because I had made a commit without discussing it first and without understanding what I was doing.
(I would have discussed it first, but the developer concerned was on holiday at the time.)
What I'm saying is, there's a possibility that it wasn't unprofessional.
Some might argue what was unprofessional at both employers (GitHub and my previous one) was not having an iron policy that all commits must be code reviewed by another person. But that's a policy issue.
However, it allegedly started happening _after_ the failed come-on, which would make it retaliatory. That's unprofessional, and probably amounts to gross misconduct.
That would make it possibly retaliatory. It remains possible (although I would not say that I consider it likely) that there were legitimate technical justifications for reverts made after the rejection, and that the sequencing of those two events was entirely coincidental.
If I were management at github, I would grill the employee who reverted those changes for a technical justification for the reverts. If the justification seemed tenuous or strained, I would fire them on the spot. I would however make sure to grill them before firing them, as it is not certain that there was no legitimate technical justification.