Thank you for a patient explanation. I see that using passive voice leaves out all other decisions, choices, influences, etc. And I agree that active voice is

Thank you for a patient explanation. I see that using passive voice leaves out all other decisions, choices, influences, etc. And I agree that active voice is a shift to bring those into the mix. I think the point I’m hung up on is I just don’t see blame in my version. I sincerely read it as a factual retelling, including GitHub (the software) as an agent that responds to commands and performs them. It makes me wonder where the borderline (if there is one?) would be between statements that convey neutrality versus seeming to be accusations (perhaps unintentionally and undetectably). I am curious what you do see as GitHub the company’s contributing actions to the overall situation. And where the accusation line might be. Clearly someone or some group of someones at Github built the functionality. And, in so doing, made it possible for an accidental deletion situation to exist, even if at the time they did it completely in good intention and with included warnings. At some point though, Github themselves deleted data on their own repo by taking it private. They followed up by restoring their data, and not changing the dialog to be more clear. Are any of these statements blaming, to your eyes/ears?