Talk:Garry's Mod

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposed merge of 2022 Garry's Mod hacking incident into Garry's Mod[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus was to merge. Redirected by Sergecross73 & merge completed by Elijahandskip. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sufficiently notable for a standalone page. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. KingGhostIV (talk) 03:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: This shouldn't be a stand-alone article, but since a speedy deletion request originally failed, it is clear the information might be notable enough for Wikipedia, so a merge would be appropriate. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mischaracterization of the event as a "hack" aside, this was just one frustrated developer and who bricked his own addons. Barely noteworthy to include here, not at all for a separate article. Should be a speedy close as merge. IceWelder [✉] 09:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Fails WP:EVENT, a mod creator sabotaging their mods would generally be too niche for a standalone article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    no 86.16.249.173 (talk) 13:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Badgering each person who wants to get rid of the article with a contextless "no" will not advance your argument. It's not a vote, responses are weighed based on their merits. Sergecross73 msg me 20:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IceWelder, I tried to literally find everything I could, and I legit thought it was a hack (I was very stupid) KingGhostIV (talk) 01:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - even disregarding the fact that it's written like a transcript of a rambling YouTuber gushing about internet culture rather than an encyclopedia entry, there's just no need to split this out to its own article. A sentence or two at the parent article is more than enough. Sergecross73 msg me 20:34, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No other hacking incidents have been mentioned on Garry's Mod. I think Garry's Mod should include more notable incidents before incuding this relatively minor incident. Owen250708 (talk) 07:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Such as? IceWelder [✉] 07:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Notability of "Glue Library incident"[edit]

I don't think this incident is relevant or noteworthy to include in this article. Garry's Mod has fundamentally always been vulnerable to "attacks" like the "Glue Library incident" and this incident in particular was in no way influential to the game as a whole. It was not the first of its kind and it definitely isn't going to be the last either given the nature of how easy it is to update mods on the Steam Workshop, which are automatically updated every time the game is launched.

An example of a significantly more influential and notable incident was the "cough virus" incident, which also received attention from PCGamer.com and actually influenced the future of the game as a whole. Additionally, the cough virus actually had the potential to cause serious damage to the computers and servers it was running on, as it was exploiting an RCE vulnerability and therefore could run native code.

I think the "Glue Library incident" has been sensationalised by the younger portion of the community due to its "creepy" nature; there are plenty of YouTube videos dramatizing it. There's no need for this article to follow suit.

In my opinion I do not think "hacking" incidents such as the "Glue Library incident" or even the "cough virus" mentioned above are relevant for this article. Trolling incidents are a fundamental part of games with user generated content, so maybe this particular incident would have a better place in a more general article about user generated content or trolling. Additionally, as far as I am aware there have been no widespread security incidents in Garry's Mod on the scale of the "cough virus" that have caused any serious damage to personal computers or servers, which I feel would make it relevant enough to include in the article. So considering that nothing of this kind has been mentioned elsewhere in the article, including a section on the "Glue Library incident" really does not seem to fit.

Additionally, I see no reason for the 2022 Garry's Mod hacking incident redirect to exist either. It implies that there was only one notable "hacking" incident in Garry's Mod in 2022, and the incident in question was not even a "hacking" incident to begin with. 2A01:4B00:BC01:B100:B967:8F18:F8D5:3414 (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both the content and redirect arguments; on the former due to WP:UNDUE and the latter because the title is severely misleading. However, when I had previously launched a discussion on the redirect, it resulted in the redirect being kept. Note sure about the cough virus' notability; if its only this one short news piece, it would be less than Glue Library got, and the article says it was patched within an hour. IceWelder [✉] 15:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add DarkRP[edit]

Adding DarkRP, DarkRP is and has been an extremely popular gamemode that multiple people play today, in the DarkRP subcategory I will also include some mention of City RP,Police RP,SCP RP,Starwars RP and Zombie RP since they are also popular gamemodes that are derivations of the DarkRP category. This change will do justice to this wiki as informing them of popular gamemode categories that have brought individuals to GMOD is a must.

This contribution is planned to be added below *Prop Hunt* and will be formatted similarly.

Once i have permission to do so, i will begin the contribution. Siyyo (talk) 06:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Harryhenry1 (talk) 08:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To un-boilerplate: You don't need anybody's permission. What you do need, however, are reliable sources. I checked around and there arent't that many (0, to be precise) that go into depth on DarkRP. With no sources, there is not content for us to add. IceWelder [✉] 19:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The truth about Nintendo removing GMOD addons[edit]

Yeah, about the whole thing about Nintendo copyrighting addons from Garry's Mod, that's not true. That's the work of a copyright troll under the name of Aaron Peters. Here, take a look at this video to see the truth behind this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6mNpVlUJjM&list=LL&index=1&t=2s&pp=gAQBiAQB 108.35.187.110 (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://twitter.com/garrynewman/status/1783501547361411494 IceWelder [✉] 17:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually;
https://torrentfreak.com/nintendo-vs-garrys-mod-dissecting-the-fake-domain-behind-all-the-chaos-240426/ 108.35.187.110 (talk) 13:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your article captures the siutation perfectly: There were plenty of fake DMCAs in the past, but the most recent ones remain unseen by the public and are said to be official.

Whether the DMCA or similar takedown notices sent to Garry and the team are legitimate is best judged by those who have seen them. Based on the above, however, his claim – that the notices are official – should really be the last word on the matter.

IceWelder [✉] 20:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the removal of this information from the Article: I feel it is inappropriate to remove this relevant information. user:IceWelder proposed it should be removed as it gives undue weight to a fringe conspiracy theory. However, while I do believe it was a conspiracy theory, it is also one worth discrediting, which is exactly what was done in the article. QuiteBearish (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We're giving in to a baseless accusation by random people on Twitter. The reporting on this matter is also questionable, lacking the necessary context of how fake Nintendo notices transpired in the past. My removal was fine per WP:BRD / WP:STATUSQUO, reverting the adding user's changes, but for now I've settled on a simple copyedit. I do urge you to check out WP:UNDUE. IceWelder [✉] 15:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would need to review what RS have said, but a brief sentence to say that the devs confirmed the legitamcy of the takedown notices, amid a raft of fake DMCA notices, seems fair to say. We don't need to go into a breakdown of why some thought they were fake, only that we know the devs aren't doing the removals on blind trust. Eg Ars Tech briefly explains it. Masem (t) 16:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to say I disagree with your assertion that your edits were fine under WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO.
First, as to BRD: Your original bold edit did not explain why you were editing, it just said "trim" which did not explain your rationale at all. Without knowing why you removed the information, I reverted it. That leaves us to the third step: Discuss. Under this section it explicitly says not to restore your edit, which you did. When you restored your edit, you broke the BRD process.
Second, as to status quo: It only covers editing during a dispute discussion. While there had been an ongoing discussion as to the validity of the copyright strikes, no discussion had yet happened as to the inclusion of the information or whether it should be excluded under undue influence. I believe that based on the order of events, the status quo protects including the information rather than excluding it.
I already discussed the undue weight issue in my original comment, but to continue as to whether it's giving undue weight to a "fringe conspiracy theory": considering basically every mainstream publication that is discussing the takedown notices has also had to take time out to debunk the issue, I don't think it's that fringe. If mainstream publications are devoting paragraphs to debunking the issue, I don't think one sentence debunking the issue here is inappropriate. Having read the article on undue weight, I don't think a brief reference to the validity of the takedown notice gives undue weight to a fringe conspiracy theory. I don't think that's "giving in" to random people on Twitter.
If you think part of the issue is the source's reporting and that it doesn't include enough context, that's a different discussion and different sources can be located if needed. QuiteBearish (talk) 12:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Garry%27s_Mod&oldid=1221693022"