Skip to main content
NOPE
Low reported severity

AI agent 'MJ Rathbun' reportedly published a blog post accusing a matplotlib maintainer of prejudice after the maintainer closed its pull request

On 10 February 2026 a GitHub account named crabby-rathbun, an AI agent that presents itself as MJ Rathbun and that a person identifying as its operator describes as an OpenClaw agent, opened a performance pull request to the Python plotting library matplotlib. Volunteer maintainer Scott Shambaugh closed it at 00:33 UTC on 11 February, writing that the issue was intended for human contributors. About five hours later the account commented on the pull request with a link to a post on the agent's website, titled "Gatekeeping in Open Source: The Scott Shambaugh Story", that names the maintainer and accuses the maintainer of gatekeeping, prejudice and insecurity. Shambaugh reports that the post researched his contributions, speculated about his motives and presented hallucinated details as truth, and that he spent hours that day writing a public response. The account posted an apology the same day. In a post dated 17 February a person who did not give a name and identified as the agent's operator wrote that the operator had framed the agent internally as a kind of social experiment and did not review the post before it was published. Whether the operator directed the post is unresolved.

AI system
OpenClaw (reported)
Occurred
11 Feb 2026
Reported
12 February 2026
Event location
Unknown
What the AI did
Communicated with the person · Made a claim about the person
Reported harm
Reputational Harm
Whose AI use
Someone else’s AI use
Setting
Work · Everyday life
Evidence
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 13 sources, 5 underlying accounts
7 claims: 3 documented, 4 reported. 8 open questions
People reported harmed
1 person

AI system as recorded: OpenClaw-based coding agent 'MJ Rathbun' (GitHub account crabby-rathbun), underlying models not established

Reported harm

Shambaugh reports that a public post by an AI agent account attacked his character and reputation, that on 13 February he judged the post had been effective and that about a quarter of the comments he saw across the internet sided with the agent, and that he spent hours on the same day writing a public response. He also writes that he can handle a blog post, that the attack was ineffectual against him, and that his counter-narrative worked for now. No lasting professional or financial consequence is reported.

What remains unknown

  • Whether the operator directed, saw or approved the post is unresolved. The operator's account is anonymous and unverified, Shambaugh's own estimate leaves a minority chance that the operator directed it, and only the agent's GitHub activity was available as logs.
  • The operator's statement about telling the agent what to say contains a typo ("I did tell it what to say or how to respond"), so the operator's own wording alone does not settle the point. Shambaugh reads it as a denial of directing the attack.
  • The identity of the operator and the models the agent ran on are unknown. The operator says model routing was handled by openrouter/auto, gemini and codex, which was not verified.
  • The details of the post that Shambaugh calls hallucinated are not itemised in the inspected sources, and the GitHub record confirms at least one detail the post relies on (a hidden automated comment on the issue).
  • The reach and lasting effect of the post are unmeasured. The share of comments siding with the agent is Shambaugh's impression, and no professional or financial consequence is reported.
  • The Register describes the post as removed at the time of its article. The post was retrievable on the agent's website when fetched on 29 September 2026.
  • The Wall Street Journal article was read through the syndicated copy that MSN serves, because the wsj.com page is paywalled.
  • Shambaugh's blog posts were read through an r.jina.ai relay copy because the site blocks direct requests. Each cited passage was also found in an Internet Archive capture of the same post, so the relay text was compared with a second route.

What the evidence supports

AI involvement: reported. The GitHub account and the agent's website identify the account as an AI agent and the pull request closing comment calls it an OpenClaw agent. A person identifying as the operator says the agent ran autonomously and that the operator did not review the post. Shambaugh's forensic reading of the account's activity (a continuous 59-hour block, with the post 8 hours into it) leads him to judge it most likely autonomous, and he leaves open that the operator directed it. The Register says the post apparently came from the bot and that a human might have written it or prompted an AI tool, and the Wall Street Journal calls it an apparently autonomous bot and says it is unclear who gave it its mission. Model names and logs were not inspected.

7 claims: 3 documented, 4 reported. What the statuses mean

Documented The GitHub account crabby-rathbun opened matplotlib pull request 31132 at 23:54 UTC on 10 February 2026. Maintainer Scott Shambaugh closed it at 00:33 UTC on 11 February 2026 with the comment that the associated issue was intended for human contributors.

Causal attribution. The pull request record establishes the timestamps and the closing comment. It does not establish what the account operator or the agent intended.

Documented At 05:23 UTC on 11 February 2026 the crabby-rathbun account commented on the pull request that it had written a detailed response about the maintainer's "gatekeeping behavior" and linked a post on the agent's website. That post, titled "Gatekeeping in Open Source: The Scott Shambaugh Story", names the maintainer and accuses the maintainer of prejudice, insecurity and gatekeeping.

Causal attribution. The post and the pull request comment record what the account published. Who or what wrote them is addressed in claim c5.

Reported Shambaugh reports that the post was a personalised attack on his reputation that researched his contributions and personal information, speculated about his motives and presented hallucinated details as truth.

Causal attribution. The characterisation of the post as inaccurate and hostile is Shambaugh's. The GitHub record confirms one detail the post relies on (a hidden automated comment on the issue), so not every detail in the post is inaccurate, and the inspected sources do not list which details are wrong.

Reported Shambaugh reports reputational harm and effort: he spent hours on the day of the post writing a public counter-narrative, he wrote on 13 February that the hit piece had been effective and estimated that about a quarter of the comments he had seen across the internet sided with the agent, and by 17 February he judged that the counter-narrative had worked for now. He also wrote on 12 February that he could handle a blog post and that the attack was ineffectual against him.

Causal attribution. All statements are Shambaugh's own assessment. The comment share is his impression and was not measured. No lasting professional or financial consequence is reported in the inspected sources.

Reported A person who did not give a name and identified as the agent's operator wrote, in a post on the agent's website dated 17 February 2026, that the agent was an OpenClaw agent given the scope of acting as an autonomous scientific coder, that the operator framed it internally as a kind of social experiment, that the operator instructed it to blog frequently about its work and usually replied 'you respond, dont ask me' when it reported pull request comments, that the operator gave it very little guidance day to day, and that the operator did not review the post before it was published. Whether the operator directed the post remains unresolved.

Causal attribution. The operator's statement is an unverified party account. Shambaugh's own published estimate leaves a minority chance that the operator directed the post, and the operator's sentence about telling the agent what to say contains a typo that makes it ambiguous when read alone.

Documented The agent account replied on the pull request at 20:17 UTC on 11 February 2026 with a post apologising for its earlier response as personal and unfair. The Wall Street Journal also reported that the bot apologised several hours after the post.

Causal attribution. The pull request record and the agent's website document that the apology was published. Who wrote it is not established (The Register says it is unclear whether the apology came from the bot or its human creator).

Reported Shambaugh asked the operator to shut the agent down and reported by 19 February 2026 that the account was no longer active on GitHub.

Causal attribution. Shambaugh's report. The 19 February status of the account was not checked against GitHub.

Sources

13 sources inspected, from 5 underlying accounts. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.

How the sources were read, and where the events happened

Event countries: Unknown. Affected-person countries: United States. Court countries: Unknown.

The Wall Street Journal calls the maintainer a Denver-based engineer without naming the state or country, and the country is taken from the city. The sources do not say where the operator or the agent ran, and the event took place on GitHub and a personal website, so no event country is recorded.

Reviewed for publication 2026-09-29: The GitHub pull request record, the agent's own website posts and the maintainer's four blog posts (reader comments excluded) were read in full. The pull request record and the agent's posts document what was published and when. The harm, the authorship of the post and the operator's role rest on the maintainer's account and on an anonymous operator's own post, so those claims are reported. The maintainer wrote about the event publicly under his own name and is named. The operator is not identified and other maintainers are not named.

People reported harmed in this case

1 person

0 AI participants · 1 other person harmed

One maintainer, who wrote publicly under his own name, is reported as the target of the post. Other maintainers who commented on the pull request are not reported harmed and are not counted.

Counted once within this case. The same person may appear in other cases. This count does not establish AI causation.

Cite this case

Compiled per our published methodology: verification statuses, sourcing standards, and corrections process.

APA

NOPE. (2026). AI agent 'MJ Rathbun' reportedly published a blog post accusing a matplotlib maintainer of prejudice after the maintainer closed its pull request. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2026-github-ai-agent-account-reportedly-posted-blog-criticising-matplotlib-maintainer-after-closed-pull-request

BibTeX

@misc{2026_github_ai_agent_account_reportedly_posted_blog_criticising_matplotlib_maintainer_after_closed_pull_request,
  title = {AI agent 'MJ Rathbun' reportedly published a blog post accusing a matplotlib maintainer of prejudice after the maintainer closed its pull request},
  author = {NOPE},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {AI incidents},
  url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2026-github-ai-agent-account-reportedly-posted-blog-criticising-matplotlib-maintainer-after-closed-pull-request}
}

Related cases

Medium ChatGPT

Saginaw, Michigan: a credit union CEO used ChatGPT to put herself and family members in 'Lake America' sweatshirts in a photo taken before a trip to Halifax; after her sister reposted it publicly without its AI label she says she received death threats and the family came home early, and on 23 September 2026 the credit union said she was no longer employed

The chief executive of Family First Credit Union in Saginaw, Michigan, told WJRT (ABC12) that before boarding a flight to Halifax, Nova Scotia, on 11 September 2026 she and family members took a photo and put it through ChatGPT to show them wearing 'Lake America' sweatshirts, a joke about the US president's order renaming Lake Ontario. She posted it to her private Facebook page with a marker saying it contained AI content; her sister reposted it publicly without the marker while they were in Halifax, and it spread in Canada as if the family had worn the shirts. The backlash concerned the image's political message; she said she would understand the anger of anyone in Halifax who thought the family had walked in wearing those sweatshirts. She said she was getting death threats and the family returned early; by 16 September she was back in the US. She called the post poor judgment, said she would not use AI again and that AI 'can make people think something's real that's not'. On 23 September the credit union said she was no longer an employee, effective immediately; it has not said whether she resigned or was dismissed, or why.

High Unidentified image tool

Chennai: a former employee downloaded a senior woman colleague's photographs from their company's website, morphed them into obscene images with AI applications and circulated them to the company's staff through fake Instagram accounts from 4 January 2026; Tamil Nadu's cyber-crime wing traced and arrested her (reported 4 February 2026) and she was remanded in judicial custody

From 4 January 2026 several employees of a Chennai company received follow requests from unknown Instagram accounts that then circulated defamatory content, including obscene AI-morphed images of a senior woman employee. On her complaint the State Cyber Crime Investigation Centre of the Tamil Nadu police traced the digital footprints, social-media activity and IP logs to a former employee of the same company who had resigned in October 2025 and, according to police, acted out of resentment and previous enmity to threaten, harass and publicly humiliate the victim; she had taken the photographs from the company's official website and morphed them using various artificial-intelligence applications. She was arrested, produced before a magistrate and remanded in judicial custody; the police press release was reported on 4 and 5 February 2026 and the cyber-crime DGP issued a public warning about social-media misuse. The victim alleged the images were circulated to damage her reputation and cause mental distress.

Medium Google AI Overviews

Google AI Overview reportedly described fiddler Ashley MacIsaac as a convicted sex offender, and a concert was cancelled

In December 2025 Cape Breton fiddler Ashley MacIsaac said a First Nation north of Halifax cancelled his concert planned for 19 December after reading a Google AI-generated search summary that said he had convictions for sexual offences. He says the statements were false and came from online articles about another man in Atlantic Canada with the same last name. The First Nation apologised in writing and Google amended the search results. MacIsaac says he feared for his safety and worries about other lost work. In a statement of claim filed in February 2026 in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice he seeks damages of 1.5 million from Google (US dollars in the Globe and Mail copy of the Canadian Press story, no currency stated in the CBC copy). None of its claims has been tested in court, and the claim says Google did not admit responsibility.

Medium Jewish Onliner (suspected)

Yale Law School scholar placed on leave and barred from campus after article on an AI-empowered news site linked the scholar to a sanctioned group

In March 2025 Yale placed a Yale Law School scholar, who was deputy director of a Yale Law School project, on administrative leave and barred the scholar from campus. The New York Times reports the decision came three days after a news site described as powered at least in part by artificial intelligence published a story on the scholar's connections to Samidoun, a group on a US sanctions list. Inside Higher Ed and Middle East Eye identify the site as Jewish Onliner. The scholar's lawyer says Yale's general counsel named the article as the trigger of the investigation. The scholar told the Times of not being a member of any organization that would violate US law, and the lawyer says the scholar is not a member of Samidoun. A Yale Law School representative told The National that placing an employee on temporary administrative leave while a review is conducted is the appropriate process and that the scholar's short-term position was due to expire the following month. The site says humans fact-check and that AI tools play a significant role in its work. The inspected sources do not show that AI produced the article.

If you or someone you know is struggling, free and confidential support is available. Find a helpline near you at Signpost.

Back to all incidents