Talk:Alexis Kennedy

Accusation of Major Editor Bias

The main contributor (and reverter of edits, especially those which discuss the controversy related to AK) to this page is Wendighost. It's worth noting that the only contributions they make are to things which directly relate to Kennedy, and it would not be a major leap to suggest that it is Kennedy himself. Some of their edits are of questionable interest (they seem very interested to highlight AK's brother's suicide, and that they have a distant uncle who also has a wiki page, for example.), and they seem very concerned that the accusations of misconduct don't have a separate section as is the norm for such a controversy. <-- unsigned, from IP 82.68.8.23

I don't believe this user is acting in good faith nor in the interest of sharing knowledge, but rather in controlling their PR. <-- unsigned, from IP 82.68.8.23

82.68.8.23: I left a notice on your talk page asking you to dicuss the matter in good faith on this talk page. Please desist from attacking me personally and from speculating about my identity. I _do_ have a strong interest in the subject of both Kennedy and his work, as, it seems, do you: an anonymous mobile web IP who's only ever made edits to this article, and refers to him familiarly as 'AK'. Wendighost (talk) 14:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I see another, much more credible editor, has fortuitously arrived and made similar edits, I assume in response to a dispute resolution request. The edits they're making are similar to yours but look bona fide to me, and I'm not going to revert. I think Kennedy's most recent blog post deserves an update, however. Wendighost (talk) 14:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I see no basis for Wendinghost's accusations of vandalism, but Wendighost does seem to have a very specific and limited interest in editing articles about Alexis Kennedy positively. I do not know the wikipedia procedures surrounding issues such as this, but Wendighost does not appear to be editing in good faith, and would suggest that they refrain from editing articles associated with Alexis Kennedy. Mousecalledgerald (talk) 17:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I concur with Mousecalledgerald. I looked into this "blog post," and in fact, there is a screenshot at the bottom of it, an email from an EIC at a news source explaining why they didn't run an article on it because it didn't meet the criteria for news. This is an open-and-shut case to the point that anyone insistently trying to add it to the page is a serious red flag to me about that user's intentions. 96.21.19.114 (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Mousecalledgerald and 96.21.19.114! Welcome to the Alexis Kennedy Wikipedia Talk Page Major Editor Bias discussion. I'm sorry to see that both of you made exactly this one first ever edit the same day that the controversy blew up, and then disappeared again. It is unusual to see brand new editor accounts showing up on the talk page of a minor public figure to talk about red flags. Perhaps there was an outbreak of public spirit in (checks IP) LA that day.

96.21.19.114/82.68.8.23/@abuseindustry - the point about the EIC is particularly weird. I encourage any passing editors to make up their own minds. Including brand-new IP-only ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wendighost (talk • contribs) 07:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Seems like Wendighost has once again been making inappropriate edits to this page and accusing people of using multiple accounts to revert their edits. It’s worth reminding them that they’ve been advised to refrain from editing wiki pages on this topic, especially to insert non-neutral information from dubious sources. I’d also recommend they drop the “I can trace your IP’s location” shtick, which could be considered an (attempted) threat - 82.68.8.23 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.218.74 (talk) 21:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@82.132.218.74 good day. please be aware that Wikipedia policy is pretty explicit on what constitutes a 'dubious source': "Do not use self-published sources unless written or published by the subject". Would be great if talk contributions were signed as otherwise we have no idea who is who. Alpapan645 (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Concerning recent news (Aug 2019)

With the recent news about the credible sexual assault allegations, this article needs two things: Semi-protection so people aren't vandalizing it, and some actual sourced info in his bio about them — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3003:2400:D00:0:0:0:2FA8 (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Latter done, will monitor for the need of the former.Sam Walton (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

The first line of the article indicates it's needed. Will edit but suspect it'll be changed again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steppenvulp (talk • contribs) 00:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I've just noticed this two years on. _None_ of these accusations are of "sexual assault", credible or otherwise. Blurring the distinction between "sexual assault" and "professional misconduct" serves everyone badly. Wendighost (talk) 15:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Is an unfounded accusation considered noteworthy enough for inclusion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.28.113 (talk) 23:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Who are you to say if they're unfounded? Hyoscine (talk) 07:12, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• Basically, we decide if an accusation is worth covering (and also if it's 'founded / unfounded', or if we even discuss that aspect of it) based on what the reliable sources say. For negative material about a WP:BLP, the standard for sourcing is higher - we definitely can't cite it directly to Twitter or Reddit. Here is a quick Google News search; I'd suggest looking over that for the highest-quality sources, then we can decide based on those if there's enough to include (and, if we do, how much focus to give it or what to say, based on what the sources say.) I'd be a bit dubious about the Gameindustry.biz and Game Revolution sources on their own, but Gamasutra is probably all right. --Aquillion (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

There have been other accusations too; see https://www.reddit.com/r/weatherfactory/comments/cwq2sp/some_disturbing_information_about_alexis_kennedy/ . Not sure if this is sufficient to include in his article, but it's not just Meg saying this. Regardless, it looks like there are some possible shenanigans going on here. There has been vandalism of at least one of his accuser's pages made from an IP address that resolves to one of those island-nation TLD's used by vpn's, and a revert-war concerning a proposal to delete it. So any admin who is monitoring this page for semiprotection should probably look at the others, too. 45.47.32.30 (talk) 14:25, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Reddit is certainly not even close to a reliable source for allegations such as this, especially on a BLP (or anywhere) nor is a single source based on a tweet thread. Praxidicae (talk) 14:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

What do you think about relying on Gamasutra and Venturebeat? Those seem to be the best sources covering it at the moment and IMHO enough to support a mention (I think we should reduce our reliance on Gameindustry.biz and Game Revolution, though, which don't have the same reputation.) --Aquillion (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. At the time they wrote it, the tweet was 20 hours old. I cannot imagine much fact checking went into that and I still disagree with it's readdition and would suggest removing it until consensus is reached. Praxidicae (talk) 13:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

We now have coverage in 5 separate sources, including a response from Kennedy and impact on other projects. It seems pretty clear cut to include this information by this point. Sam Walton (talk) 13:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• I mean, Venturebeat, Gamasutra, and Eurogamer are a big chunk of the reliable sources that cover indie game stuff. And we're being relatively cautious in our wording (just saying that the accusations occurred and listing reactions to them), which is about what the sources say. I think it's at the point where WP:BLP is satisfied in the sense that... regardless of how things go in the future, these accusations are out there and being heavily covered enough to justify inclusion. --Aquillion (talk) 17:52, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2019

"Reliable sources" are not just anybody. That phrase does not relate to singular people, does it? Anybody can claim anything, to label them as reliable is assume quite a lot, and not actually examine the issue at hand. We are talking about a man's career. At the least it should be noted in his profile that while the accusations have been leveled, not a single form of evidence has been brought to light. 2601:500:8401:3890:641F:1D59:94F:F889 (talk) 00:36, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

The issue is that we have to rely on the sources to cover it (if we're going to cover it at all.) We can omit the topic entirely if the sourcing isn't good enough (although I think there's enough for a mention now), and can / must be careful to say that it's just accusations if that's how the sources present it; but we can't say "there's no evidence tho" unless the sources do. For one thing, the sources cite multiple people who say they witnessed or experienced it. Whether you count that as "evidence" or not is your call, but from an encyclopedia-writing standpoint we have to leave that call up to the sources covering it - we can't just overtly dismiss it unless we have a source doing so. Again, we can debate whether it should be included at all based on the sources we have, and we can (and do) include his denials, but "include, with a disclaimer or expression of skepticism we concocted ourselves" isn't an option. --Aquillion (talk) 00:57, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Reopening the request for edit protection Details of a court case are being added in a way that implies the allegations were found to be unfounded in court. This is inaccurate and perhaps disingenuous. Looking at the court case, it is about a share settlement, where the allegations are raised only to discuss whether the share trade was agreed when the people involved were on good terms and thus whether a different settlement should be reached once the good terms ceased to exist. See point 9: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2022/3483.htm From the link provided, the case is largely about ownership of shares and the undervaluing of shares during a sale. At the very least it only refers to Failbetter Games' role - and does not invalidate any one else referenced in that section. If it's added, it should be clear that it was a chancery not a defamation case and that the 'truth' of the misconduct allegations was not considered in court.

 Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Yeshivish613 (talk) 00:11, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

@Yeshivish613 good day Yeshivish

i moved the settlement statement back to allegations of misconduct before reading your message here. I haven't checked your sources but happy to consider that it should it be moved back but then the citation will have to change to the court case file. the current cite is from a journalist whose only sources in the article are the blog posts from the subject. I spent an hour going through those two posts and it is evident that the allegations of sexual misconduct and corporate misconduct were entwined with the latter tested and settled and the former never saw a courtroom. considering that failbetter has not reaccused the subject, it seems that the situation is not as black and white as you state.

happy to discuss what information the reader should get so they don't have to do the hard yards you and i had to do of reading the sources. Alpapan645 (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

having now reqd the bailii document, it is clear that reputational attacks from both sides were a key part of the settlement. It is not just about the shares but the conduct of both parties. Alpapan645 (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Having Alpapan645 (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

having now read more about this, including this legal explainer it seems more clear to me than before that the judgement you provided is actually proving that the settlement is linked to the allegations for misconduct by the subject.

the subject is the defendant and he was stating that failbetter engaged in a campaign of harassment (the allegations). the claimant, failbetter sought to strikeout the defence. The High Court found that Kennedy's evidence regarding the parties' deteriorated relationship and Failbetter's subsequent conduct could be relevant to whether specific performance should be granted, even if those events occurred after any alleged agreement

in other words, the high court rejected the request from the claimant, accepted the defence that the subject AK was subjected to unproved allegations.

this shows that the subject won this procedural battle and presumably is the reason why Failbetter was forced to settle. i note that failbetter has not mentioned the allegations again since the settlement. if a crime was committed, a settlement would not be able to silence them: it is illegal in the UK for a settlement to prevent the reporting of criminal misconduct.

therefore I'm confident that the settlement is covering the issues of alleged misconduct, is now in the right paragraph and shouldn't be reverted again, and that the original journalist cited was correct in their assessment that this was not about some cash transaction. Alpapan645 (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

The explainer you've linked to seems to be a generic solicitors homepage (Sydney Mitchell). Please could you explain how you came to the conclusion that the settlement related to a defamation case when the outcome is confidential and the information we have from https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2022/3483.htm indicates that the dispute was related to incorrect sales of shares. As such it should be moved to the career section. ~2026-30472-25 (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@Alpapan645 Given that you've misunderstood what a Settlement_(litigation) implies, I would not be certain that you understand the details of what was involved. Settlements can mean both or neither side 'win', depending on what they wanted. You haven't linked to anything that even explains why you think Kennedy was advantaged in the settlement over Failbetter. It could be the other way around. The actual contents of the settlement is confidential.

Further sources (8 September 2019)

Here's a thread on the forum of Failbetter Games, the company founded by AK but which he is no longer connected with

It contains links to multiple accounts by people saying they were victims of or witnesses to abuse by AK. These accounts are evidence.

Posts on the thread are all from ordinary members of the forum but they do include a reference to this statement on the official Failbetter twitter account stating that the company believes the accusers and had severed all ties with AK some time previously.

MadLogician (talk) 02:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Conderning allegations on wikipedia

Is Wikipedia now really a place were people are publicy decried so that everyone can read publicy about their misbehaviour and there is no possibility to get that every removed (it will stay at least in post history)? I think in this way wikipedia can seriously harm someones reputation and career. I believe that everyone - even a murderer - deserves a second chance were he can live his life as if he never did what he did - without other people treating him based on what he did several years ago.

regarding this allegation: Morever the claims of the allegations are not proven - there is no court confirming or disconfirming them. Why mention them at all? Furthermore the article is not concrete in what Alexis supposedly did: "predatory behaviour", "abusive", "crossed professional boundaries" - reading the linked articles I come to the conclusion that he might hired someone based on attractiveness with the intent of a sexual relationship, later cheated her and treated her differently (in a negative way, isn't said concretly what he did) during work after that. The reader could also think, based on the terms used in the article, something like Alexis being a rapist or pressuring someone into a sexual relationship - which he never did and isn't accused of. This should be more clearly distinguished by the terms used to describe him.

PS: This discussion applies to all similar articles on Wikipedia and not exclusively to Alexis Kennedy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:A66:3A0:30D1:81E0:8598:4475 (talk) 12:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

thank you for this. I had to read a lot in order to be able to answer it in this talk page. In relation to your comment, I learnt that

"

Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to the law (copyright, libel, privacy) and our content policies:

• Neutral point of view
• Verifiability
• What Wikipedia is not
• No original research
• Biographies of living persons
• Working with others
• Civility
• No personal attacks
• Resolving disputes

We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.

An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, and as such it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. BLPs must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.

This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material.

"

In other words, Wikipedia is not the place to host a crusade.

I also learnt more about how editors should behave before accusing each other. Alpapan645 (talk) 16:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)