Talk:Denver Outlaws

@GoRebs & @Drmies, instead of continuing to edit war over this page, or fighting on my talk page, let's have a discussion here.

For added context, when the new Denver Outlaws franchise was created, some discussions did take place on whether or not to have separate pages (linked here and here). The consensus was that the two teams should have their own pages.

To reiterate my position though; I think the two teams should be held on separate pages. I think that it's fairly clear that despite sharing branding, the two teams are entirely different organizations, with little to no continuity between the two, such that having multiple pages would benefit someone who is unfamiliar with the histories of the MLL and PLL. Additionally the is precedent for similarly named teams to be held on separate pages, like the NLL's Boston Blazers and Boston Blazers, or the NHL's Winnipeg Jets and Winnipeg Jets. SammySpartan (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I strongly disagree because Mike Rabil and Paul Rabil answered this specific question on their podcast because I asked them because of this. Go give it a listen. It's from August 13, 2024 on the One on Ones with Mike and Paul podcast titles "Breaking Down the PLL Playoff Scenarios". At the 24:30 mark you will hear my question which is this exact question. I'm correct and it's fairly clear I'm correct because the owners of both the PLL and MLL and MLL Outlaws and PLL Outlaws (who are the same Outlaws) said so. Go look at the Cannons page. Why isn't that two separate pages? GoRebs (talk) 23:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

The Cannons' history is held on a single page because there was significant continuity held between the MLL and PLL there. Through the MLL–PLL merger, the cannons retained their entire coaching personnel and a significant amount of their players. The Outlaws cannot make such a claim, they're a rebrand of the Chrome Lacrosse Club, with whom they share continuity (coaches, players, etc.).

If you treat the two Outlaws franchises as one and the same, that would mean that from 2019 to 2021, the franchise was competing across two leagues, as the Outlaws in the MLL and as the Chrome in the PLL, which is clearly not the case.

The history and proper context of the MLL team is still held on the Denver Outlaws (2006–2020) page, it should stay that way. SammySpartan (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Mike and Paul and the Denver Outlaws official twitter page says otherwise. So the PLL itself disagrees with you. It's complicated I get it but you aren't even trying to understand. GoRebs (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Also they sell official Denver Outlaws merch that says Established 2006. How is that possible if they were established in 2019 like you're saying? GoRebs (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

It's nothing new in professional sports for an organisation to claim the history of a spiritual predecessor in order to better legitimise themselves to a prospective audience. Hell, we even saw an entire league attempt to do it last year. — AFC Vixen 🦊 21:23, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Easy. You call up the textile manufacturer, you tell them to sew the words "Established 2006" on the scarfs or ball caps or whatever, done deal. This sort of thing happens all the time: or are you really asserting that the present-day Birmingham Stallions or Michigan Panthers have the slightest thing to do with the original 1980s USFL teams? Ravenswing 18:12, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

You all know more about Wikipedia than I ever will but I know more about the Denver Outlaws than you ever will. Having no talk of the MLL Denver Outlaws on the PLL Denver Outlaws page is a disgrace to professional lacrosse history because they are the same franchise that belonged to my city of Denver. Hell even the PLL Championship Trophy itself has all the MLL Champions listed on it but the Denver Outlaws Wiki page can't? That's malpractice in a very complicated history of professional outdoor lacrosse. GoRebs (talk) 23:54, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Sammy looking through those other conversations about the pages you were the only one who was disagreeing. The consensus is total nonsense it's just you doing what you please. GoRebs (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose — To build upon what I stressed in an earlier discussion on the issue, these are two seperate franchises. One verifiably folded in 2020, and the other started in 2019 – they literally co-existed at one point in history. If anything, merging these two histories into one simply because they share the same intellectual property would be "malpractice" that'll make understanding the "very complicated history" of these two franchises even more difficult for readers. The practicality of covering two different organisations that have nothing to do with each other, and have overlapping seasons, is poor. How would such an article be structured, even? — AFC Vixen 🦊 21:10, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

• I'm going to ask @Emoore2914 to chime in on this discussion, because they've also been adding a ton of MLL-related material to this page, as well as some folk who participated in previous versions of this discussion (@Jsfxmn, Bes2224, Ravenswing, Marlinite) Because I want to have some kind of definitive result of this matter. SammySpartan (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

  The continuation of the Denver Outlaws' identity in PLL, despite their previous MLL history, has created confusion among fans and historians. Addressing this issue is vital for maintaining clarity and consistency in lacrosse recordkeeping.

  Overlapping Branding and Historical Recognition One of the key concerns is the overlap in team identity. The Denver Outlaws were a dominant franchise in MLL before the league's merger with PLL. When PLL expanded and absorbed MLL teams, the Outlaws' branding remained a central aspect, leading to branding confusion. This situation resembles the overlap between the Chrome Lacrosse Club in PLL and the MLL's Denver Outlaws.

  However, PLL has acknowledged the Denver Outlaws’ historical record in MLL, reinforcing their legacy as one of the most successful teams in professional lacrosse. Additionally, the league has recognized how key figures, such as Eric Law, have brought the Outlaws’ team culture and identity into the new PLL framework.

  Precedent: Boston Cannons' Transition to Cannons LC A precedent for this merger can be found in the transition of the Boston Cannons. When PLL absorbed MLL, the Cannons were treated as a new team, rebranded as the Cannons Lacrosse Club. PLL officially recognized the Boston Cannons as an expansion franchise rather than a direct continuation of the MLL team. A direct comparison of their rosters from 2020 (MLL Boston Cannons) to 2021 (PLL Cannons LC) highlights significant changes:

  • The Boston Cannons' 2020 roster consisted of 25 players, primarily from MLL.
  • Only a handful of players from the 2020 team remained on the Cannons LC 2021 roster, while the majority were newly added through the PLL entry, expansion, and dispersal drafts.

  Player Retention and New Additions:

  • Retained Players from 2020 to 2021:
    • Zach Goodrich (Midfield)
    • Tim Edwards (Midfield)
    • Nicholas Marrocco (Goalie)
  • Notable New Additions in 2021:
    • Lyle Thompson (Attack)
    • Ryan Drenner (Attack)
    • Shayne Jackson (Attack)
    • Paul Rabil (Midfield)
    • Deemer Class (Midfield)
    • Brodie Merrill (Defense)
    • Jack Kielty (Defense)
    • Holden Garlent (Defense)

  This comparison shows that while a few key players remained with the team, most of the 2021 roster comprised new additions. This roster overhaul reflects the team's strategic approach to integrating fresh talent and adapting to the PLL’s competitive landscape.

  Similarly, the Denver Outlaws should be recognized as a continuation of their MLL legacy rather than a distinct PLL entity. Additionally, PLL has acknowledged and valued the Outlaws' history, emphasizing how Eric Law and other key figures have maintained the Outlaws' culture within the PLL structure.

  Counterarguments and Rebuttal Some strongly oppose merging MLL Denver Outlaws history with PLL Outlaws, citing explanations from PLL leadership, including Mike Rabil and Paul Rabil. This argument is based on their direct response to a fan question in the August 13, 2024, One-on-One with Mike and Paul episode "Breaking Down the PLL Playoff Scenarios." At 24:30, the Rabil brothers addressed this issue, confirming that PLL and MLL Outlaws should not be conflated. However, despite their position, the historical and branding confusion necessitates a formalized merger in reference material such as Wikipedia.

  Conclusion While PLL leadership has suggested keeping the Denver Outlaws' MLL and PLL histories separate, the historical continuity, branding overlap, and precedent set by the Boston Cannons indicate that the Denver Outlaws' full history should be unified. Proper documentation of this transition is essential to preserving the integrity of professional lacrosse history and ensuring accessibility for fans and researchers alike. Emoore2914 (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  furthermore, the continued circulation of incorrect founding dates on social media makes it even more critical to officially acknowledge that the Denver Outlaws were founded in 2006, not 2024. Emoore2914 (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  Did you have ChatGPT write this? This hardly makes any sense in regards to the Outlaws, and the sentence "This situation resembles the overlap between the Chrome Lacrosse Club in PLL and the MLL's Denver Outlaws." is entirely gibberish. SammySpartan (talk) 19:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  We should follow the structure of the Boston Cannons page as a model for organizing the history of the Denver Outlaws and their transition within professional lacrosse. There are two possible approaches to structuring this information effectively.

  One option is to merge the histories of the Denver Outlaws from Major League Lacrosse (MLL), Chrome LC (2021–2023), and the rebranded Denver Outlaws (2024–present) into a single cohesive narrative. This approach would begin by detailing the Outlaws’ tenure in the MLL, highlighting their achievements and role in the league. It would then transition to their move into the Premier Lacrosse League (PLL) under the Chrome LC identity, explaining how the franchise adapted to the new league structure. Finally, the focus would shift to the 2024 rebranding, where the Chrome identity was retired, and the Denver Outlaws name was reinstated. This method ensures that the entire history of the team is preserved in a single, well-organized account.

  Alternatively, we could maintain a separate page for Chrome LC to document its existence from 2021 to 2023 as an independent entity within the PLL. In this case, the Denver Outlaws page would be structured to merge the history of the MLL Outlaws with the new PLL version of the team, incorporating relevant details from the PLL’s history page. This would allow for a more distinct separation between the teams while still acknowledging the connections between them.

  Both approaches have merits, and the decision should be based on which format best presents the history of the franchise in a clear and comprehensive manner. Emoore2914 (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the passion you seem to have, but you glossed over Chrome, and talked extensively about the Cannons here. If you agree that all iterations of the Cannons are a single, continuous franchise, despite the changes you highlighted, then surely you'd also agree that Chrome and the PLL Outlaws are also a single, continuous franchise. They inherited staff and roster contracts, and their pick in the 2024 PLL College Draft.^[1][2] Primary sources,^[3][4] and numerous reliable, third-party sources,^{[2][5][6][7][8][9]} also reported it as Chrome being rebranded, not Chrome being folded.

As I asked above, if we are to merge the two articles, how would you propose we structure it, as it'd cover two different, co-existing franchises? As far as I'm aware, there's no precedent for this – even the Charlotte Hornets, which Paul Rabil discussed in the aforementioned One On Ones with Mike and Paul episode, does not have a co-existence problem with the New Orleans Pelicans that a proposed merger of these two articles would have.

— AFC Vixen 🦊 20:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

AFC Vixen, I’m telling you what the PLL wants—it’s not coming from a random company but directly from the league office. They have a clear vision for what they want the Denver Outlaws to be. Emoore2914 (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Third-party sources are prioritised over primary sources, and even if the opposite were the case, I literally just gave you two citations in which the PLL themselves explicitly recognise the Outlaws as a continuation of the Chrome franchise. Also, who are you to talk like you speak on the PLL's behalf? Do you have a relation to the organization? If so, you need to disclose it. — AFC Vixen 🦊 00:45, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

They also stated that the Denver Outlaws from the MLL are a continuation of Chrome LC’s history. The first source of this information comes from the CEO, founders, and president of the league. All marketing and official statements regarding the Denver Outlaws originate from the MLL era, Chrome LC, and the newly rebranded Outlaws. Emoore2914 (talk) 01:18, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Absolute nonsense. The MLL Outlaws and Chrome co-existed, so it's empirically not a continuation. Once again, primary sources like the PLL do not take precedent over independent third-party sources, which are important for verifiability. We don't care about what an organization claims, we care about whether such claims can be verified. — AFC Vixen 🦊 01:35, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

The primary source for this information comes directly from the Founder, CEO, and President of the PLL in an official announcement. In the video linked here[], between minutes 24:00 and 28:00, they discuss their vision for the Denver Outlaws' branding. During this segment, they outline how they want the team’s identity to be presented and positioned within the league, emphasizing its connection to both the MLL’s Denver Outlaws and Chrome LC. This provides direct insight into the league’s official stance on the transition and historical continuity of the franchise. Emoore2914 (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the PLL takeover is not a matter of opinion. They are presenting facts, not random speculation from people on the street. This information comes directly from the league, not personal viewpoints. Emoore2914 (talk) 01:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Okay, you're clearly not listening to what anybody here is trying to tell you, so I'm not entertaining a discussion between us any further, lest I repeat myself ad nauseam. — AFC Vixen 🦊 02:03, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

You are not listening to me. Just because you want to keep it the same doesn’t mean it is the correct decision. I will report you because you are making decisions based on opinion rather than facts. I have laid out all the facts, but you are choosing to base your decisions on your own viewpoint instead. If someone is sharing their opinion rather than citing official sources, they should not be editing Wikipedia pages as if their interpretation is factual. Emoore2914 (talk) 02:09, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

(I came here from WP:NPOVN) @Emoore2914 On what the PLL wants, see WP:OWN. WP:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing might also be of interest to you, and perhaps WP:When your boss tells you to edit Wikipedia, since you know what the PLL wants. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:09, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Did you watch the video? Additionally, @AFC Vixen has not considered other people's opinions about this page. Both he and @SammySpartan are the only ones opposing the merger.

@AFC Vixen has talked about consensus, referencing the discussion here: []. However, it seems like the only "consensus" he acknowledges is his own opinion. Emoore2914 (talk) 14:46, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm a "she". — AFC Vixen 🦊 15:05, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but thank you for letting me know. I appreciate the information. Emoore2914 (talk) 15:42, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

@AFC Vixen has talked about consensus, referencing the discussion here: [[2]]. However, it seems like the only "consensus" her acknowledges is her own opinion Emoore2914 (talk) 02:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

That you'd prefer to think so, I don't doubt. That you're routinely ignoring every other voice is apparent. Ravenswing 03:50, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I am not ignoring other people's voices like you, and @AFC Vixen. are. Your only argument is for coexistence and rebranding, but the only valid agreement here is coexistence within the framework the PLL has already established. The league has made an official statement about the rebrand, emphasizing their intent to honor the history of the Denver Outlaws (MLL), Chrome LC, and the PLL Outlaws.

However, you are failing to acknowledge this and instead act as if the two of you are the only ones with authority to decide, pushing a biased opinion. When two other users have come forward in favor of the merger, aligning with the league’s official announcement, you still refuse to acknowledge it. The reality is that many people in this discussion are open to the merger, but the three of you are disregarding valid viewpoints and opposing it purely based on personal bias. Emoore2914 (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I would like to re-ask the question of how would an article like the one you're proposing even be structured? Could you give an outline of what the sections would be, and how the season records would be managed do deal with the conflicting overlapping seasons? SammySpartan (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello @SammySpartan here is the ouline

Sport

Field lacrosse

Founded

2006

Team history

Denver outlaws

2006-2020(mll)

Chrome lacrosse club 2020-2023 (pll)

Denver outlaws 2023-present

Championship

3 MLL: 3(2014,2016,2018

Championship Series titles

1 2023

I. Introduction

• Overview of the Denver Outlaws as a franchise.
• Their origins in Major League Lacrosse (MLL) and transition to the Premier Lacrosse League (PLL).
• talked about chrome lacrosse club and there start in the pll

II. MLL History of the Denver Outlaws

• Founded in 2006 as part of the MLL expansion.
• Key moments and achievements in the MLL era.
• The impact of the COVID-19 tournament (2020).
• Ceased operations following the MLL-PLL merger.

III. PLL History and the Chrome LC Connection

• PLL founded in 2020, introducing Chrome LC.
• Chrome’s role during the COVID-19 year tournament.
• The MLL-PLL merger and its impact on former MLL franchises.
• PLL’s decision to retain the name rights of MLL teams.

IV. The Return of the Denver Outlaws (Homecoming)

• PLL revives the Denver Outlaws as an official franchise.
• The significance of bringing the Outlaws back to Denver.
• How the new Outlaws franchise honors the history of both the MLL Outlaws and Chrome LC

I believe we need to make it clear when we are Talked in about the mll and pll the only season that overlap as the covid- 19 torment and it was only for like 2-3 weeks we have to make the clear and i think we need to do in 2 section the mll and pll part Emoore2914 (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

The other opion is make one page just for the chrome, the other page is just for the outlaws with a link to the chrome page. it will denver outlaw 2006-2020 then 2024--present follow the Boston page and Charlotte Hornets page on how they layout the did that Emoore2914 (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Serious factual error here: the PLL started in 2019, not 2020. The 2019 Major League Lacrosse season, featuring the Outlaws, and the 2019 Premier Lacrosse League season, featuring Chrome, played simultaneously. The overlap is not just a few weeks in 2020. — AFC Vixen 🦊 19:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

TRUE it a year and 2-3 weeks Emoore2914 (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

we need to talked about the overlap Emoore2914 (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose AFC Vixen's argument is entirely persuasive -- if the franchises co-existed, I don't give a good goddamn what some podcast or what a team's marketing department wants credulous fanboys to believe. We operate off of verifiable fact here, and when there are differences of opinion, we operate off of consensus, not on anyone's unsupported claim of authority. Ravenswing 18:04, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

  The podcast and statement come from the CEO, President, and founders of the PLL. All marketing originates from the PLL headquarters and by the PLL. You stated that we operate based on consensus. The consensus of the PLL and its fans is that the Outlaws began in the MLL in 2006 and were reborn in 2024 Emoore2914 (talk) 16:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  Demonstrably not all of its fans, and the purported "consensus" of some company is irrelevant here. With that, I see that you're a new editor, and you'd do well to review WP:CONSENSUS, among other policies. Beyond that, that we have two editors with 55 edits between them coincidentally piling onto this dispute supporting a merger raises issues of sock/meatpuppetry. Ravenswing 18:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  That and these two IPs causing trouble, too: 132.194.13.133 and 67.172.157.86. — AFC Vixen 🦊 01:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Emoore2914 has returned to edit warring. The discussion above has pretty much run its course with a consensus to keep the pages separate, and I've requested a closure. However, I'm doubtful it'll prevent further edit warring by either Emoore2914 or GoRebs, who engaged in very similar behaviour as Emoore2914 on this page (see Sockpuppet investigations/GoRebs for more info). I requested page protection, and full protection for three days was applied back in February, but this clearly won't be enough, and I am unsure what action should be taken next to prevent future edit warring by those two, or somebody else with a similar edit warring agenda. — AFC Vixen 🦊 12:38, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

@AFC Vixen There has been no clear consensus. The only so-called consensus has resulted in nothing, because opposing viewpoints are being ignored. Therefore, I believe you should not be allowed to edit this page. Multiple users have expressed a desire to combine the history fairly, but you continue to dismiss those perspectives and coordinate with others who already agree with you. It appears you are engaging in off-Wikipedia coordination, which undermines the integrity of the editing process. Emoore2914 (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

@Significa liberdade: I saw Emoore2914 has called upon you, so I'll give my perspective here: Emoore2914 repeatedly made disruptive edits to Denver Outlaws while a discussion on it was ongoing.[1][2][3] Emoore2914 expressed disdain for others' opinions, describing their viewpoint as "facts",[4][5] and others' as "personal viewpoints", "personal bias", "biased opinions", and a "biased narrative".[4][5][6][7] Emoore2914 believes "many people", including "the PLL and its fans", agree with them,[6][8] while those disagreeing are "the only ones", and are "coordinating" with me.[9][10] Emoore2914 expressed a dislike of me in two different apparent non sequiturs.[9][11] Emoore2914 reported me to WP:NPOV/N because I was "not aligned" with their opinion.[7] When an administrator, MarioGom, asked Emoore2914 to disclose any conflicts of interest or alt accounts, they accused MarioGom of "coordinating [an] attack" with me.[12] I think the behaviour speaks for itself. — AFC Vixen 🦊 12:30, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I'll further add that I didn't find discussions with Emoore2914 to be constructive of beneficial, especially when many of their responses were (in my opinion) clearly written by AI. They frequently switched between directly answering questions using poor grammar and spelling[1][2][3][4] to providing comments with an over-emphasis on bold words and bulleted lists (which ChatGPT is particularly known for [5][6][7]) that had little-to-no bearing on the discussion at hand.[8][9]. SammySpartan (talk) 23:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

@SammySpartan and @AFC Vixen I don’t understand why you’re acting like this page is something deeply personal, as if it’s your child. If you’re no longer interested in the team or its community, why not just step aside? Let the fans who still care take over and keep the page active and updated. It’s not your private property. This is an encyclopedia meant to inform, not a webhosting service where one person gets control. The way you’re behaving comes off as immature and controlling, without any real reason. Let the people who are actually invested in the team handle the page moving forward. I don't understand why you won't let the fans and the people who care about the team keep their own page"--it is not your page. This is an encyclopedia, not a webhosting service Emoore2914 (talk) 04:16, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

@SammySpartanYou went ahead and made edits without any discussion or consensus, which goes against the spirit of collaboration. And @AFC Vixen, I don’t understand why you’re acting like a bully here. It feels like you and Sammy think you're the only ones allowed to control this page, as if you somehow own it. That’s not how this is supposed to work. This page doesn’t belong to just a couple of people—it’s part of a shared encyclopedia meant for everyone. Other fans and contributors have just as much right to be involved. Please stop acting like this is your personal property. @SammySpartan If you're not Turnitin or an official AI detector, then you don't have any credibility when it comes to identifying AI-generated content. You want to talk about consensus well on the Denver Outlaws 2006-2020 page It is important to note that there is a clear majority in favor of maintaining a unified article, specifically merging the 2006 and 2024 pages. Users @bes2224, @jsfxm, @marlinte, @gorebs, and myself—totaling five individuals—have expressed agreement on keeping the article consolidated. In contrast, only three users—@AFCvixen, @Sammyspartan, and @Ravenswing—have voiced opposition.

This 5-to-3 ratio reflects a consensus in favor of merging, not splitting. Despite this, @AFCvixen unilaterally chose to divide the article without consensus, which directly contradicts Wikipedia’s policies regarding neutrality and collaborative editing.

Accordingly, I have reported @AFCvixen to the Neutral Point of View/Noticeboard, as their actions appear to push a narrative that the majority of contributors never supported. If @AFCvixen fully understood the concept of consensus, the article would not have been split in the first place

Emoore2914 (talk) 04:30, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

The three you mentioned were absent from this discussion, and didn't respond to any of our rebuttals, despite being pinged.[1] We know this ping worked too, because you were also pinged and you came. And you know well by now the concerns about your relationship with GoRebs. I won't take seriously any accusations of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR from somebody who circumvented the discussion multiple times to edit the page to their liking, and repeatedly insinuated that they're somehow the sole voice of the PLL and its fans here. I also won't take seriously accusations of bullying from somebody who literally just told us that we aren't "interested in the team or its community" and that we're not part of the "everyone" that you insist this encyclopedia belongs to – atop the other insulting things you've said over the past month. — AFC Vixen 🦊 12:52, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

First, the assertion that I was “pinged” and failed to respond is factually incorrect. A valid ping on this platform requires both the mention of a username and a signature in the same comment to generate a notification. In this case, that protocol was not followed. Therefore, any claim that I deliberately ignored the discussion lacks merit.Second, the repeated insinuations regarding my association with GoRebs are unfounded and unsupported by any evidence. No concrete indication has been presented that would suggest collusion or improper coordination. These speculative assertions serve only to distract from the substantive content matters at hand and should be set aside unless credible proof is provided.Regarding the accusation of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, I find it contradictory and concerning. The same individuals making this claim have engaged in unilateral editing without consensus, while dismissing alternative viewpoints. I have acted in accordance with Wikipedia policy, supported my contributions with clear rationale, and remained focused on improving the accuracy and neutrality of the article—not exercising control over it.Finally, the claim of bullying is disingenuous, especially in light of prior comments stating that I and others “don’t care about the team or its community” and do not belong to the “everyone” whom this encyclopedia supposedly serves. Such remarks are exclusionary and undermine any claim to objectivity or civility.If the goal is truly to improve the quality and reliability of this article, then I encourage all parties to engage in policy-based, constructive discussion and to refrain from personal attacks or bad-faith assumptions moving forward.

If the three individuals you referenced have not had an opportunity to respond to my comments or participate further in the discussion, then on what basis did you proceed to make edits without their consensus?[][]Your actions suggest a disregard for collaborative editing norms. Moreover, the pattern of your edits appears more focused on dividing or fragmenting the article rather than improving its neutrality or accuracy. One must reasonably ask: is your goal here truly to serve the encyclopedia’s standards, or to impose your own version of the content irrespective of broader community agreement Emoore2914 (talk) 15:36, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

"First, the assertion that I was “pinged” and failed to respond is factually incorrect." ... did you mean to write this from an alternative account? Also, I was quoting you. You were telling us that we didn't care about the team, and that we didn't belong. I'm not entertaining this nonsense back-and-forth anymore. — AFC Vixen 🦊 16:07, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

To all administrators@Significa liberdade: the behavior above that I have cited is now plainly on display and speaks for itself. I respectfully submit this as direct evidence supporting the concerns I previously raised. I trust that the conduct demonstrated here will be evaluated in light of Wikipedia’s standards for collaborative editing and community interaction. Emoore2914 (talk) 16:16, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Admin here: you are playing the man, not the ball, because you are not finding consensus for your proposal, and it's time to end this. You are correct that "the conduct demonstrated here will be evaluated in light of Wikipedia’s standards for collaborative editing and community interaction": please stop with this conduct or you might find yourself blocked from further edits and interactions. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

What relationship to me? Emoore2914 is speaking facts. Obviously facts don't matter in this situation and this page will always stay crappy. I'll continue to edit scores and records until you all tell me I can't do that because that is wrong. GoRebs (talk) 22:20, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Can you explain what made you think Emoore2914 was "an intern from the PLL"?[1] It skirts the boundary of believable coincidence that such a big claim without proof would later be suggested to be true by Emoore2914 themselves.[2][3] — AFC Vixen 🦊 03:07, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Give it a break. Go touch some grass. Outlaws lost yesterday. GoRebs (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Why don't you want to answer? — AFC Vixen 🦊 06:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I hardly use this site. I tried making this page better. Clearly all you regular users of Wikipedia didn't like that even though it had no effect on you all. No need to argue with people whose opinions I do not respect. GoRebs (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

So be it, I suppose. I'll disengage from this conversation too, but not without pointing out that your refusal to answer a simple question that would've likely cleared things up, using Emoore2914's attack tactic of othering those who disagree with you, and your shared insistences that both your views are "facts", has not helped your case here. I sincerely hope there isn't any further edit warring from either you two, or some other editor, attempting to enforce the league's view on the Outlaws' history over the views of reliable, independent sources per WP:RS and WP:IS. — AFC Vixen 🦊 19:40, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

The league, the owners, and the sport disagree with you all. You are wrong. Hope this answers your "simple" question. I also know that none of this matters to you or @SammySpartan or @Ravenswing. GoRebs (talk) 17:12, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

@AFC Vixen wikipedia define of a from WP:PUBLISHED According to Wikipedia’s sourcing standards, “published” encompasses any material made publicly accessible, including not only text-based sources but also audio, video, and other multimedia—provided they are distributed, archived, or broadcast by a reputable entity. Thus, audio and video content, when originating from a credible source and properly cited, qualify as published materials under these criteria. Consequently, the audio and video evidence presented by @GoRebs and myself arguably derives from a source more reliable than certain secondary interpretations offered by traditional news outlets. Emoore2914 (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)