Talk:IceFrog

Real name
Could anyone of the IPs removing the sourced mention of the real name please explain why Eurogamer should not be considered a reliable source by Wikipedia`s standards? Regards  So Why  07:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * We discussed this on the Dota 2 talk page. Valve or IceFrog have not come forward, stating his name, so it's refutable. Additionally, the news piece references a blog, rather than a reliable source. I'll be nominating this page for deletion immediately. D arth B otto talk•cont 09:17, 03 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if it sounds patronizing but have you read Verifiability at all? Wikipedia does not care whether Valve or IceFrog have stated the name. That does not make it refutable at all. What we do care about are reliable sources and Eurogamer is such a source. There is no reference to any blog in the article as far as I can see, so please point it out to me. Btw, why exactly do you want to nominate it for deletion? Real name or no real name, he is clearly notable by Wikipedia's standards as the lead designer of two different projects. Regards  So Why  09:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course I've read that section, which is precisely why I am bringing this point up. You don't need to apologize, you were trying to downplay my integrity to gain an upper-hand in a debate I care less about. IceFrog is notable, but there is hardly enough to properly identify him as a person. Eurogamer is notable, as well, I've used it multiple times in different articles. What you say about Eurogamer I can see and that's what is questionable: There is no reference to any blog in the article. They are the only notable reference to use that name and that usage came after a supposed Valve employee released The Truth About IceFrog: Behind the Bullshit. I'll admit, it was a hasty idea to immediately delete this, but the reference Eurogamer is running off of is not reliable at all. I want to know, do you have much knowledge about the back story of this whole debacle? D arth B otto talk•cont 09:47, 03 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry but your integrity is not what I aimed at. I aimed at your argument and apparently, I hit it. I don't know much about the backstory and frankly, I do not really care. What I do care about is Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you claim that anything not confirmed by the subject or their employer is refutable, you have to show me where exactly in Wikipedia's rules it says so. Which you can't, because there is no such rule anywhere. If you claim that Eurogramer is not reliable, then you need to prove its lack of reliability in this case. Saying that Eurogamer must have taken the name from a blog is pure speculation at this point because you admitted yourself that that's just what you think happened. Wikipedia does not build articles on what single editors think though, we build them based on rules that are the result of extensive discussion and consensus. The rules say that what matters is that a reliable source (Eurogamer) confirms it and the strong consensus says that Eurogamer is reliable. On a side note, by removing the name again, you edit-warred, since you clearly could see from the page history that this has been done before, reverted and then brought here for discussion. Please do not do so again. Regards  So Why  10:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Eurogamer does not state where they found it and that's why that name never lasts more than a few seconds on the pages for Defense of the Ancients and Dota 2. It's apparent that I'm getting nowhere with this and my such perspectives won't hold up against an administrator. I wasn't seeking to vandalise or edit-war like those anonymous IPs; I just wanted to see this article have discretion. I'll stay out of this fight now. D arth B otto talk•cont 10:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no requirement that reliable sources tell people their sources. That would effectively undermine the principle of confidential sources, wouldn't it? So unless there is any proof that Eurogamer found it there, the fact that they are reliable means that we have to take it as it is. Please do not cite my status as admin as a reason for anything. I created this article as a normal editor and I will not use the tools anywhere near it, so the fact that I have them is completely irrelevant. My argument is purely and solely based on current policy and practice and I'm happy to be convinced otherwise if I'm wrong. Nobody is perfect after all. But in order to have a discussion, you really need to start citing policies, guidelines or proof to support your point of view. For example, if you can demonstrate that Eurogamer is unreliable, I'd be the first to remove the name from the article because than it fails Verifiability. But at the moment the facts are different. Regards  So Why  10:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * His real name is either David Him (Chinese American)extracted from his gmail account or according to the blog, Abdul Ismail (muslim name, more probable reason for being anonymous). He has to reveal himself when Dota 2 is released... if not, this article should be deleted and be merged with Dota and Dota 2, he's semi-notable not notable.... his relevance does not extend beyond Dota Allstars or Dota 2 --75.159.2.59 (talk) 11:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems like his name is Abdul Ismail as stated on this list http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=689145 Hotty3 (talk) 22:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

minhanoo Inari kon kon (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Why dont u show your face? Inari kon kon (talk) 21:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

As I am doing editing on another article (Valve's, highlighting the new case about Dota's ownership), it should be noted that this court record identifies IceFrog's legal name, which is also repeated in this ArsTech article. That may or may not be sufficient (BLPPRIVACY still should be considered) but just wanted to drop these here in case. --M ASEM (t) 19:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Confirmed finally huh? I'll have to find a way to incorporate this into the article. ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 06:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, IF it is the correct attribution that is. 2A02:8388:1602:A780:D598:E8F0:E15C:7B9C (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Content Theft
Would it be worthwhile to add sections about IceFrogs repeated content theft from other modders from wc3sear.ch? Im not sure if its anything that could cause lawsuits, since it hasnt up to this point afaik, but it is something thats well known amongst war3 modders, particularly from that site (which was a major war3 modder site, now called The Hive Workship afaik). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.146.157 (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not aware of any content theft by Icefrog. Guinsoo copied a lot, e.g. from Tides of Blood. But its been a while, so its completely possible I simply forgot. Any sources ? 88.70.121.95 (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Article for Improvement
How about making this page an 'article for improvement' in WikiProject Video Games? Would that be possible? Dat GuyTalkContribs 13:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem like WP:VG has a specific process for specific article improvement like the general WP:AFI, but you can still certainly ask for help in either forum. In any case I don't personally know much about Dota 2 gameplay or development, so I wouldn't be able to help much.--Prisencolin (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Very little is known about IceFrog, so what could be used to improve the page? ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 19:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * IceFrog only really interacted until the end of Valve's endorsement of playdota.com. There has virtually been nothing written or spoken about him, save for a court document published by a judge last month. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 06:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Name
I personally do not care about the name, whether someone is anonymous or not. Some people are upset when they are no longer anonymous, others are not. I also remember one example where someone stopped contributing code after his real name was revealed, which was a loss for that given language community. But anyway, what I am trying to say here is this - the article links in to a court document, and at the least one name is mentioned (in that document). So IF this court document is real (which we all can assume that it is right? We don't expect US courts to publish wrong documents), and IF it points to the one under the pseudonym (aka IceFrog), then I think that the wikipedia main article should also list that as name. Unless of course anyone is able to state that the court document would refer to someone else. 2A02:8388:1602:A780:D598:E8F0:E15C:7B9C (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * We already have a policy on this (WP:BLPNAME). And besides, the WP:COMMONNAME and therefore the article name would still be IceFrog, so this only affects mentioning his name in the infobox/lead. ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 20:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)