Talk:Sollog/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

1

I've archived all the previous discussion here: Talk:Sollog/Archive 3 and cut off the discussion at an arbitrary point. Feel free to restore any previous discussion you deem necessary. Please remember the rules. Dbenbenn 19:17, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In order to keep discussions constructive, civil, and on topic, I'd like to remind everyone of the following policies, plus I have some proposals regarding how they might be enforced on this page:

  1. Sign all comments with ~~~~. Unsigned comments will be de-anonymized.
  2. Indent your comments appropriately using :, ::, :::, ::::, etc... (added by --Alterego 20:10, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC))
  3. Consider logging in if you have an account. If you don't have one, create one. If you have more than one, pick one to use on this page and stick with it, i.e., don't be a sock puppeteer. Posting without an account does not protect you or exempt you from the rules. Posting from anonymizing proxies is not allowed.
  4. No name calling, no personal attacks. Portions of comments containing personal attacks will be removed.
  5. No legal threats. Portions of comments containing legal threats will be removed.
  6. Do not maliciously alter other people's comments, blank the page, etc. This is considered vandalism and will be reverted.
  7. No person may revert the same page more than three times in any 24 hour period; full details can be found here.

Thank you. --MarkSweep 19:38, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Der Spiegel Article Discussion

Thanks! I'm still trying to check the reference for the Critics section. I'm curious what xinoehpoel.united.net.kg says, but the site's been down for a while. --Dbenbenn 05:43, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Wayback Machine has a copy on file: [1] --Carnildo 05:58, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have to say, the English translation of the Spiegel articles is is not always accurate. In the English translation, the title of the first article starts with "911 - a remarkable legend develops". However, "remarkable" is completely wrong, it should be "macabre" or "grim". A better translation of the title would be "a macabre myth takes shape". Anyway, here are some excerpts about Ennis:
This is normal for a circular translation... Wyss 13:12, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Ah, but this is not fully circular yet. The indented paragraphs are my direct translation from the original Spiegel articles. We only go full-circle when we translate the German translation of Altman's comments back into English. --MarkSweep 21:31, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's exceedingly likely that Xineohpoel [sic!] is none other than Sollog, the self-proclaimed Prophet of the Internet. He has haunted [the internet] since the early 90s and experiences boom times whenever people suffer.

"Sollog," says journalist Howard Altman – who for several years has had the dubious pleasure of dealing with Sollog, including in court – was once short for "Son of Light, Light of God".

The last passage suggests that Altman had to deal with Sollog on several occasions including in court. It could even be understood to mean that both Altman and Sollog were parties in a court case, which is news to me.
I read that as a reference to Altman meeting Ennis during the "God" trial. Wyss 13:12, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In the interview [Patalong interviewed Altman for the Spiegel articles] Altman clearly hints at what he thinks of Sollog: After Altman made fun of the self-proclaimed deity in several skeptical columns, Sollog threatened him with mail bombs and sued for one trillion [see below] dollars in damages. Altman: "That was pretty insane."

The original has "Billion" here, but in European usage that often means 1012, i.e. an American trillion. However, it's perhaps more plausible that Altman actually said "billion" and that his statement was mistranslated as "Billion" or that "Billion" was used implicitly with the US meaning of 109.
It's probably billion. Wyss 13:15, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree, but our article here on WP currently says that "Ennis also reportedly threatened to sue Altman for one trillion dollars in damages", which could be off by three orders of magnitude if a bad translation is the underlying source. It's possible that Altman actually said "billion" and that his comment was translated into German as "Billion", which is at best misleading, and translated back into American English as "trillion". A cursory check did not reveal a reliable English language source for this claim (I don't consider the English translation of the Spiegel articles available on the web to be reliable). --MarkSweep 21:31, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Nope, found the source for "trillion": another column by Howard Altman. Amended comment: The relevant quote is "my old psychic buddy SOLLOG (Sun of Light, Light of God) who, on his planet, is suing me and the Washington Post a trillion dollars for libel." Could refer to another "TOH judgement" like the one issued against WP. --MarkSweep 23:12, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sollog's actual name is John Patrick Ennis, but for years he has sued anyone who dared to call him by his baptized name. It is therefore relatively difficult to locate Ennis in archives or on the web. The few photographs of him that once existed have long since disappeared, with the assistance of legal counsel.

Again, the claim that Sollog has ever successfully sued anyone about the name issue in a real-life court is news to me.
Nothing here says he ever won one of those lawsuits (although I think he did win one, or force a settlement, after a domain name marketer tried to swindle him). Wyss 13:15, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also, the issue remains open whether Sollog is really just the individual Ennis, or if a whole group of people who use this god as their "trademark" is behind this: Ennis, however, appears to be the inventor. People calling themselves "J.P. Essene", "Hisam H'asi", "Tony DiPaolo", "Nick Ensley" and "Leo Phoenix" are also listed as "incarnations". Reading the last of these names in reverse, one arrives at Xineohpoel. Whether these names represent actual people or are mere aliases used by Ennis remains equally unclear.

That last possibility is not unlikely: So far, 81 email addresses of John Ennis are known – he loves to play hide-and-seek.

There is another paragraph (omitted) about how his Usenet postings are essentially just ads drawing traffic to his websites.

Until 1998, Sollog attracted attention by his harsh attacks against [his] critics, which even included ambiguous threats of "inevitable deaths". Sollog/Ennis was arraigned on charges of allegedly attempting to run down a police officer, and on several occasions was investigated by police and intelligence services [could be a mistranslation of "Secret Service"] for being a dangerous type prone to losing his temper [lit: "choleric"] – among other things for threatening then-President Bill Clinton.

That phase ended in early 1998, when he began serving a sentence of several months. Sollog remained in existence – as an author of books and as a web site. Aliases such as Xineophoel recruit disciples in newsgroups – and buyers for Sollog's books.

Again, this appears to be a novel claim: while Ennis was serving time, others used aliases to continue to direct traffic to the Sollog online emporium. The article goes on to debunk Sollog's predictions, which I'll skip. --MarkSweep 07:31, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That would be Nicole. Wyss 13:09, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
MarkSweep, do you have a link for the original German Spiegel article? That link should go in the "External links" section along with the translation. --Dbenbenn 22:08, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You can get to a mirror of the German articles via the English translation that's already included in the "External links" section; the direct URL is here. However, as this is someone's mirror of the Spiegel Online article (and potentially a copyright violation on their part) we have no way of knowing whether it is in its original form. The original series of articles can be purchased from Spiegel Online for €0.50 each: part 1, part 2, interview with Altman. --MarkSweep 22:51, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(TOH ORDERS) Religious courts well know in other countries

Religious bodies do have the right to hold trials and issues orders. In many countries these courts have legal recognition, there are many religious courts in Israel that are recognized as above the Israeli civil system. While most of you ignore the fact that several 'Toh' members bothered to call Wales on the phone, it would seem therefore there are some Toh members. If there are Toh members then there would be legal precedent for 'Toh Orders' to have a valid standing in some courts eyes, such as Israel. In the US it would be hard to enforce 'Toh Orders' but they could be used in US Federal actions (which Sollog is known to have filed several cases against the US Government). The Sollog stradegy would be to use the religious orders as evidence of a warning to people like Wales that certain material is deemed libel and hate crimes by them. In a politically correct venue where the minority is given more protection that the majority, a court could rule that the way these orders were ignored is proof the owners had ample warning that certain material was libelous and considered religous hate by certain people in a group. So the orders are most likely the first steps Sollog and Toh are making in bring a long threatened action against several in the media. Since Toh has listed contact info for members in many small countries and all larger countries on their site, it might be that members in minor countries start to file actions against all the media that has negative articles about Sollog on their web sites. Since smaller media such as City Paper won't be able to afford defending lawsuits in minor countries, the first courts to validate these religious orders might be small foreign nations. Or on the other hand, maybe Sollog uses a country like the UK or Australia and even Canada to attack US companies for religious hatred. In these countries they find a sympathetic court to agree that the actions of a few US media companies are an example of why many around the world hate the United States for invading Muslim nations.

That all being said, the actions of 'Toh' are valid actions in some parts of the world. Religious courts are a reality outside the USA and since 'Toh' is so anti-USA they may have the majority of their membership outside the USA. The reason so many lawyers were in the Sollog court case as noted by Altman is he did get a US Magistrate to agree in an open court hearing that his legal name in court proceedings is GOD as it is for all members of TOH. That hearing is on Pacer and that decision appears to have given Sollog some fame within the Philadelphia legal system. Also, it is known that Sollog did file complaints against a famous lawyer in Philadelphia named Charles Perutto who was fired by Sollog for not revealing he was a 'friend' of the judge who later called Sollog the most brilliant man who ever appeared in his court. (see Altman article)

I've been watching the various Sollog forums and it is being discussed who to target with a hate crimes complaint next, it seems City Paper is next up and then the Washington Post. You put a few major media companies into a future US Federal case regarding material that may be false and viewed as hate by a minority group and you could have some interesting legal decisions in the future.

If you are a minor company like a city paper or a non profit owner like Jim Wales, at what point do you stop defending material that most would think were obvious attacks on a person due to his religious beliefs. While Sollog wouldn't have much of a case as an individual, he has a novel case as a religious leader. If say only 5 people show up to say Sollog is their religious leader the court will bend over backwards to protect such a minority. If Toh does have hundreds and even thousands of members around the world then the courts will act to protect the rights of that group.

The term for a religious court like the 'Supreme Council of the Temple of 'Hayah' is halakah in Hebrew. In fact the root of this word that means 'The Law' in Hebrew is the name 'Hayah. You replace the y in Hayah with lak and you have Halakah the word given to explain Hebrew courts based on Torah. The Torah is also the only religious book recognized by 'Toh' which interestingly is the root of Torah. You add ra or evil (ra is evil in Hebrew) to Toh and you have Torah. Which also means literally 'The Law' in hebrew. So Toh and Hayah are both root origins of the key words for 'Law' in hebrew.

Side note, the Sollog Federal Civil cases were filed John Ennis aka Sollog Immanuel Adonai aka God, his first appearance was an expedited motion about something (a religious holiday to him maybe) and the majority of that matter was the judge deciding what to call Sollog in court. He finally decided God was his legal name. The cases were dismissed since most of the defendants were judges a sitting president. Judges can't be sued and a sitting president can't be sued. When Sollog or his movement (Toh) use the US Federal courts if they do, they will be suing individuals and public companies, the matter won't be so easy to dismiss since libel and civil rights violations are jury questions and Sollog and his group have the right to sue about such things. It will cost a small fortune to defend such an action, so be prepared if you want to publicly mock Sollog and his group. --posted anonymously by 200.93.32.134 (wow, Venezuela!), whose only contributions so far have been to this page

Actually, in 2:96-cv-03168-JP ENNIS v. UNITED STATES, et al I count a total of 17 defendants, including 1 sitting president and 4 judges, and in 2:96-cv-01499-SD ENNIS v. USA, et al I can see 21 defendants, including 1 sitting president and 0 judges. Ho hum. F cam 15:16, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)


O anonymous person from Venezuela, what do you mean by "mock"? (Treat skeptically? Question?) -- Hoary 08:36, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)
Maybe Sollog is Hugo Chavez. That's a headline for the Drudge Report!A2Kafir 08:56, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Sounds like he's in his D.E. Alexander mode here. Wyss 13:20, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"Judges can't be sued and a sitting president can't be sued." Not true. Bill Clinton was sued by Paula Jones while Clinton was in office.A2Kafir 08:58, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Supreme court decided in 1997 (after Sollog's case was dismissed for not being able to sue a sitting president) that a president could be sued while in office. So the Paula Jones case set legal precedant, you're wrong once again kafir.
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0%2C1284%2C2571%2C00.html
-- Comment by annonymous user 195.229.241.182, which appears to be from the United Arab Emirates (wow, we're really going international with this). This IP has edits to 10 other pages since May 7, on w a wide variety of subjects; I wonder if it's an open web proxy
This phrase by our Venezuelan visitor, If say only 5 people show up to say Sollog is their religious leader the court will bend over backwards to protect such a minority, is identical in structure to something said earlier by a suspected sockpuppet. The only difference is a vast improvement in diction.
By the way, what's this ↓ link doing here? — Saxifrage (☎) [[]] 09:40, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Since Jim Wales and the Wikipedia servers are both based in the United States, US laws apply. In the US, the only legally recognized hate crimes are those where something that is already illegal is motivated by hatred for a particular group, like assult and murder. Hate speech isn't illegal, unless it incites someone else to commit a crime, but that's illegal regardless of it being hate speech or not. So unless the US has some sort of hate speech extradation treaty with other countries, hate speech charges aren't going to affect Wales or Wikipedia.
As for libel, I'm not sure what the libel laws are like in Venezuela, but in the US the burden of proof is on the plantif (the judges aren't going to "bend over backwards" for them), which includes that the defendant either made the statement out of malice or reckless negligence.
Of course, it's possible that Wales (or other contributors) could be tried in another country in absentia, and thus never be able to travel to that country without being fined and/or arrested.
Finally, about the religious courts: "Each one is entitled to set up religious courts, which have personal jurisdiction over members of the relevant community. Disputes that involve members of different communities ordinarily go to the civil courts." [2] -- Khym Chanur 10:14, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
Whether or not Toh Orders mean anything, the fact is Sollog has several sites pushing people to a page to report Jim Wales a FL Resident to the Florida Attorney General's Office for Civil Right violations. It is a Civil Right in the USA to not harass people over their religious views. This is the page he is pushing to to report Wiki and Jim Wales to the Florida Attorney General over a Civil Rights issue. http://www.templeofhayah.com/flago.shtml -- Anonymous comment by 151.8.7.15, from Italy
It's a civil right in the USA not to be harasses over their religious views by private people and entities, and not just the government? If there's any law or statute in the USA which makes it a crime for a private individual/entity (as opposed to the government) to harass someone for their religious views (as opposed to laws which make it a crime to generically harass someone), then which law is it, and which section and paragraph? -- Khym Chanur 11:47, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Given AIS' involvement with so many commercial websites, including TOH, whose only known presence is a website that sells books and memberships, and zero evidence of any active, practicing members aside from Mr Ennis, it's questionable whether any court in the US or Europe would recognize TOH as a religion. Wyss 13:44, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't know about the US, but in the UK 390,000 people claimed their religion was Jedi in the last census, but you wouldn't achieve anything except a few laughs if you tried to sue someone for promoting the dark side or claiming Yoda was a weenie. I have my doubts about Sollog and his many followers. Also it appears to me that anyone will have a tough time suing anyone over whether someone is actually God or a prophet or anything like that since most religions tend to disagree about who or what is or even whether there is a God like being at all. F cam 15:39, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

It's true, in most jurisdictions one can't be sued for saying I don't think Jesus [sic] was the son of God. Ennis is reportedly living "underground" but given the anti-taxation rhetoric on his TOH site, if he practices what he preaches (so to speak), if he did pop up somewhere in the US with an actual lawsuit filing he might be exposing himself to all sorts of ancillary risks. Wyss 15:52, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I should add, I don't think the wiki article even contests his asserted beliefs, but only reports some documented facts about his background along with various viewpoints about what he's doing. Wyss 15:56, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Referrring to Sollog as Ennis is religious harassment

What is wrong with you people. Do you think calling Sollog Ennis is a joke? You are guilty of religious harassment. -- Anonymous comment by 213.42.2.21, another United Emirates IP, but from a different net block.

I think it's a huge joke. It's hilarious! And to think this Sollog guy is accusing Jimmy Wales of being a pornographer, when he does the same thing himself! Very good laugh, I must say. - Mark 09:25, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Referring to someone by their birth-name is harrasment? If someone changes their name for religious reasons, then calling them by their birth name might be considered rude, insulting, or disrespectful, but I don't think that it could count as harrasmnet (in the legal sense, at least). -- Khym Chanur 10:49, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
If it's harassment, he must have a real beef with his parents... -- ChrisO 11:26, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've moved the page back to Sollog, as I think that is the proper title. I also think we shouldn't belittle a person, and I don't see how that's going to achieve anything here. It's just pouring fuel onto the flames. Everyking 09:52, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

IMO, that's the appropriate title. Wyss 13:22, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Referring to Sollog as Ennis is neither a joke, nor a crime, and definitely not religious harassment. There was some debate about what the primary title of the article should be. The consensus was that "Sollog" would be more appropriate, so that's what it is now, thanks to Everyking. Move along now, nothing further to see here. --MarkSweep 10:03, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Further, in ethical terms, given Mr Ennis' long and documented history of impersonating various personae on the Internet, along with his criminal and arrest record, I think it's reasonable to refer to him by his known birth name as a means of avoiding confusion. Wyss 13:37, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It seems to me this is a simple case. He's better known as Sollog, so we call him that. There should obviously be a note about what his birth name is, so people aren't taken in, but we don't insist on filing actors under their birth names, even if they are still their legal names. DJ Clayworth 17:27, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Now that the article has moved to Sollog (yay!), should we refer to him as Sollog everywhere within the article? Currently, he's called Sollog in a few places, and Ennis in a few others. I'm dubious about replacing Ennis with Sollog everywhere. I'm afraid it might imply that his "religious name" is more legitimate than it really is. If he had lots of followers who called him Sollog there wouldn't be any question; but it appears that he simply made up the name for himself. On the other hand, there are some cases, like "Sollog's predictions", where Ennis wouldn't be appropriate. (By the way, the Muhammed Ali article refers to him as Cassius Clay for events that happened before he changed his name, and switches to Ali afterward.) --Dbenbenn 18:07, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And to showcase WP precedent for holy names of religious leaders, so does the article on Pope John Paul II, referring to him as Karol Wojtyla until it comes to his papacy. Inclusion of both names in this fashion serves accuracy. Inky 20:13, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

WARNING

I've gotten a couple of emails from Sollog sites I've recently joined. They're steering people to a page to report Jim Wales and Wikipedia to the FBI and also the FL Attorney General Office for harassing Sollog and Toh over religion.

http://www.templeofhayah.com/flago.shtml -- Anonymous comment by 151.8.7.15, from Italy

For what it's worth, all of these IPs are deeply relayed, and do appear to be anonymous open proxies. Wyss 13:28, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yup, I've tried using several of them as proxies too. The FL Attorney General Office's page specifically says they can only advise you of your options, not give you legal advice nor take legal action on your behalf, so I'm not sure what Ennis is hoping to achieve. F cam 15:28, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

In a word two words, publicity and buzz. Site traffic will result in more deathporn sales if nothing else. Wyss 15:35, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The AGO does not work for anyone, correct, it files complaints for the state. So if the AGO finds merit to the complaints filed by Toh members then the FL AGO will file a complaint against Wales and Wikipedia on behalf of the State of FL and not on behalf of TOH. The complaints by Toh are an attempt to get Wikipedia to stop harassing Sollog with their article. If enough Toh members complain the FL AGO will be forced to at least contact Wales over it and explain the article isn't that neurtral and the are getting complaints from around the world. So it is a smart legal way to make Wikipedia be neutral and not an attack piece.
Comment This is classic Ennis. One can imagine the attorney general in Florida has gotten a dozen or so similarly worded emails from scattered anon open proxies around the world. Wyss 23:50, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A religious name is not a pen name

Ennis' religious name is what he has used for over 10 years. Calling it a pen name is a false statement. Is Malcolm X called a pen name? How does Wikipedia treat Malcolm X and Muhammad Ali? They are not called 'pen names'. Referring to Sollog as a pen name shows bias imho.

Contributed by 210.212.218.35 from what appears to be an anonymous open proxy in India.

I must agree with Ennis here. The term pen name has never seemed appropriate to me and tends to mislead or lend bias by implying he's a notable author. Perhaps alias or pseudonym would be more accurate. However, I'm not sure comparing himself to Malcom X or Muhammed Ali in this context is reasonable. Wyss 17:32, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, pseudonym is correct here. It just means a name other than your birth name. --Dbenbenn 18:00, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
From m-w.com: a fictitious name; especially : PEN NAME. so 'pseydonym' is biased as well. how about his 'relgious name'. Sollog is not a fictitious name; it is his real, religious name. --Alterego 18:22, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hm, perhaps you're right. But it's unclear to me how "real" this name is. Just because you make up a name and claim to lead a religion doesn't make your religion real. It would be nice if we knew when Ennis changed to Sollog. --Dbenbenn 18:33, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Just to make sure i was being clear, you can have your name 'legally changed' in a court of law. However, understand that simply beginning to use a new name is a de facto legal name change. Dbenbenn, I understand your point of wanting to know when he changed - however, if Sollog is breaking the law by going as both John P. Ennis and Sollog, it's not much of our concern until we can prove it. He has stated publicly what his new name is. If, however, we can find a recent court or any other document where he was using the name John P. Ennis, then that is his legal name in real life (whatever that is). So I guess it depends on that - if Sollog is now his legal name, then John P. Ennis is his former name. If Sollog is simply a religious name, then John P. Ennis should probably go first in the intro statement. --Alterego 19:03, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Proposed Introduction

Sollog Immanuel Adonai-Adoni (Sollog or SOLLOG for short), is the religious name of John Patrick Ennis (born July 14, 1960), an American numerologist, mystic, and psychic. In addition, he is also a self-published author, artist, musician, poet, and filmmaker. He currently resides in South Florida, and previously lived in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. --Alterego 18:25, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Or: "is the religious and preferred name of John Patrick Ennis --Alterego 18:27, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • The bonafides of TOH as a religion are not established. For one thing, Religious name would imply followers, for which there is zero evidence, and thus introduce bias into the article. Wyss 18:28, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It's his religious name and has been recognized by US courts. Remove self-published, he's an author of 30 or so books. What don't we add all the other places Sollog has live, Phoenix, California, Europe, the Middle East, South America. Let's see Adoni has domain names registered to New Jersey addresses and Delaware addresses and countries outside the USA, some are Florida. No one knows where he lives. Produce a real address that isn't a business mail drop for him. Oh you can't can you. So produce real estate or drivers license records showing where he lives. You can't can you. So the statement lived here or now lives here is speculation. --posted anonymously by User:210.212.218.35 (contribs)
Um, self published has no implications about the number of books one has written. As for addresses, I've got an address in pennsylvania from the court cases i checked on pacer. F cam 19:45, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

It's usual to put the real (i.e. legal) name of the subject of an article first, because otherwise the wording is awkward (the article is about a person, not about a religious name, but the latter is what is suggested by "X is the religious name of Y..."). Thus John Patrick Ennis (born July 14, 1960), who uses the "religious name" Sollog Immanuel Adonai-Adoni, is..., etc., would be better. Proteus (Talk) 18:43, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wyss, having a religious name is protected by the bill of rights. It is a personal decision that anyone can make. Proteus, I explained what a 'legal name' is above. Sollog is his legal name the instant he says it is and makes a public announcement concerning it. /archive3#Regarding changing one's name to God <-- click there --Alterego
"Bill of Rights"? No one disputes Ennis' right to call himself whatever he wants. The only issue is how we should refer to him in the article. I'm surprised at the position you take here, given that you moved Sollog to John Patrick Ennis earlier.
Proteus, I implemented your suggestion. I used "Sollog" instead of "Sollog Immanuel Adonai-Adoni", since the full religious name is explained in the second paragraph. --Dbenbenn 19:06, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Dbenbenn, it is painfully obvious you are looking for an argument. I addressed the bill of rights comment specifically at Wyss. His comment, which I made explicit I was replying to, was "For one thing, Religious name would imply followers, for which there is zero evidence, and thus introduce bias into the article.". So yes, the legality of him being able to 'call himself whatever he wants was in dispute. His right to a religious name, whether or not he has followers, is protected by the bill of rights. --Alterego 19:13, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"Proteus, I implemented your suggestion." You do not seem to understand the situation, Dbenbenn, and before you make any more edits I would appreciate if you would finish this conversation. --Alterego 19:15, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Wyss, please indent your comments and do not place them in a position to make others' comments seem out of their original context. I am referring to [snip]... Wyss 19:42, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)"--Alterego 20:01, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Done ;) Wyss 20:21, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Alterego, I think you're confusing legal rights with stylistic and content decisions on a wiki talk page. Wyss 19:42, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
In relation to that comment specifically, the legalities surrounding his name need to be determined in order to decide how to arrange the original sentence. No one here is making a statement as to what his legal name is. It is possible that Sollog is now his legal and religious name. --Alterego 20:05, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
There is no evidence that his name has been legally changed to some form of Sollog or GOD. There is significant evidence, however, that his legal name is John P. Ennis. Wyss 20:10, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Alterego, are you a sysop, bureaucrat, or any other form of "admin" here at wiki...? Wyss 20:07, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank SOLLOG no I am not! And I would appreciate it if you would move that comment you put above out of the way of the conversation it interupted. The replies appear to be to you and they were not. --Alterego 20:13, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Alterego, I'm not looking for an argument. Sorry if I gave that impression. I disagree that Wyss was disputing the legality of Ennis calling himself Sollog. I agree with Wyss that calling Ennis by his full religious name might inappropriately imply that his religion has legitimacy, and there is no evidence of that.

I don't claim the opening sentence is perfect, but I think it is better. Nonetheless, I will do as you ask, and refrain from editing that paragraph until there's more consensus. --Dbenbenn 19:23, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"I agree with Wyss that calling Ennis by his full religious name might inappropriately imply that his religion has legitimacy, and there is no evidence of that." It doesn't matter if his religion 'has legitimacy'. Aside from the fact that the evidence leads us to believe he has no followers, his religion is automatically legitimate, even if he is the only follower. And he has the right to call himself Sollog yadayadayda, and even make that his legal name. --Alterego 19:26, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not necessarily. For example, if that religion (which the evidence indicates has roughly one follower) is merely an edifice built by an individual with a well-described criminal and arrest record, a history of impersonation and spamming on the Internet and commercial deathporn sites, it's not a religion at all, but might more likely be what (I believe) is called in some circles a front. Wyss 19:53, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are permitted to call it whatever you like, however, you do not delineate what another person is or is not allowed to worship or claim as their religion. It is his freedom as a citizen. As far as the "well-described" criminal goes, I spent more time on probation as a teenager than Sollog has and i'm hardly a criminal. --Alterego 19:58, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have some appreciation for the enthusiastic transgressions of teenagers, but did you ever end a police officer's career by dragging him a couple dozen metres under your opened car door? Wyss 23:44, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Alterego, I don't understand why you keep saying things like "you do not delineate what another person is or is not allowed to worship or claim as their religion." As Wyss and I have both tried to point out, no one is saying that Sollog can't do whatever he wants. The issue is simply whether this encyclopedia article should refer to him as a "religious leader", or make that implication in other ways, such as by talking about his "religious name". --Dbenbenn 20:08, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
What Dbenbenn said :) Wyss 20:17, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Neither of your understand the point. I have friends with religious names. I know very well how this works. Anyone can have a religious name. The fact of whether or not Sollog is a religious leader is aside the point of his religious name. He has that right and it stands aside from any other points being made. --Alterego 20:22, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Again, nobody denies that Sollog has a religious name; the issue is merely what kind of emphasis we should give it in this article. --Dbenbenn 20:27, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Actually, Ennis brought this up originally, and I agreed with him that pen name wasn't helpful. Personally, I think alias would work, but religious name seems descriptive enough. Wyss 20:27, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Er, but if someone starts calling Ennis a religious leader in that article, I will likely rant. Wyss 20:30, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It comes down to this: Has sollog suggested that his legal name is "Sollog yadayadayada" ? If so, then that is what should be reflected in the article. If he were to go to court today, what name would he report to have put on the docket? Sollog, do you have any input on this? --Alterego 19:28, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well in 1996 it was John Ennis AKA sollog etc.. F cam 19:46, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • How about a compromise? Since the term "religious name" implies that this is a religion we're dealing with, which is in dispute; and "pen name" is by no means accurate to the situation, why not call it a "holy name"? If I remember right, members of certain faith groups use that term to refer to the name they take when converting or joining those groups. Inky 20:19, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)


  • Just to interject my opinion. Since the article is about "Sollog" The introduction should start using this name then expand into what his real(legal) name is. I would have no objection of it being refered to as his "religous name" as long as the religion (and optionally its disputed following) are explained within the article. => (Sollog Immanuel Adonai-Adoni (Sollog or SOLLOG for short), is the religious name (see TOH) of John Patrick Ennis ) myork (sorry about multiple edits)

Specific details about the Ennis cases

This is getting interesting! Ennis has recently added "specific details" about his involvement with the law. Unfortunately,

  1. His statements aren't verifiable, and don't come with citations.
  2. His writing isn't neutral.

The gist of the changes is that there was a case of mistaken identity; a different John Ennis was arrested in 1986 and 88. (By the way, note that Ennis himself uses the word "fans" to refer to his hypothetical followers.)

Anyway, it might be a good idea to note somewhere that the "Legal problems" section is based completely on Altman, who is himself not the most objective authority in the world. --Dbenbenn 18:41, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If we don't have a reliable source, should we be reporting it in the first place? "Wikipedia is not the place for original research such as "new" theories." Wikipedia:No original research --Alterego 19:44, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well, I don't think Altman is unreliable, just that he isn't objective. He's the best we have, and since he is a published journalist, I don't think using him as a source counts as original research. As with most things regarding Ennis, it's quite difficult to be sure what really happened. --Dbenbenn 19:57, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
look at your bias, anyone putting info that makes Sollog not look too bad is Sollog. Wrong again. I'm not Sollog. Personally the whole legal history thing is biased, Sollog is known for two things, the biggest is his prophecies and the 2nd is the founding of TOH, well a third thing could be his books and perhaps a 4th thing his math theories. So is a 20 year old claim of sex videos where a John Ennis got 1 year probation by a stoned judge a big deal? Is a 20 year DUI where he got 1 year work release to his own companies a big deal? The only part in the whole legal section might be the secret service bust, it was withdrawn in a month or so. Also, the Sollog case 96cv1499 is now known to be real, funny how all the skeptics over the years dismissed it as false. Is the long arrest record of Malcolm X in his article? Is the arrests of MLK in his article? Is the arrests of Ghandi in his article? Cases with 1 year probabation, 1 year work release and a case that was withdrawn are not major items and make the article look unencyclopedic and biased. Wow look at the arrest record of John Ennis, he got a year probation by a stoned judge, he got 1 year work release on a dui that was over turned, he was arrested by the secret service and the case was withdrawn. See how badly biased editors of the article are trying to make the legal history a big thing when it is a minor thing. Has Sollog ever been convicted of anything he did (since 1995 when Ennis became Sollog)? No. So the big crimes of Ennis are all now almost 20 years old, one was a minor business offence and one was a dui which qualifies him to be the next prez of the USA. The only crime Sollog was said to commit was the secret service complaint. Guess what it was withdrawn which shows the US Government did harass Sollog. Only a small amount of Secret Service cases are ever withdrawn.- unsigned comment by 210.212.218.35

When you come up with counter examples, you might first want to verify that they are true. Contrary to your claim, the articles on Ghandi, Martin Luther King, and Malcolm X all mention their arrests, and the latter article even has an entire section called "Prison". This is why we are not going to change the article based on your claims; you are simply not a trustworth source. Even if you were, this encyclopedia does not do original research like interviewing people and so forth. We rely on secondary sources. So provide us with some. You keep citing this great court case - surely as a participant in this court case you must have some court documents. Show us the money, Sollog. Gamaliel 19:20, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Proposed TOH changes

Since a biased person deleted this I thought some might want to consider putting up something encyclopedic about Sollog. I propose there be unbiased sections for what Sollog is really known for. Look at all the bs in the article for a minor criminal history. Yes minor since the only convictions seem to be related to 1. a business selling an adult video and 2. a 20 year old dui, hardly the stuff that makes anyone a 'criminal'. I think four sections should be in the article with serious unbiased info.

The first section should maybe be prophecies (his most famous claim to fame)

  • Many observers regard Ennis' prophecies as a rather inept form of cold reading. Wyss 19:57, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The second section should be perhaps TOH

  • Without verifiable evidence of active, participating members, TOH is not a notable topic for wiki. Wyss 19:57, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The third section his books (30 books by any author is a notable thing)

  • Even 100 self-published books is usually not notable in itself. However, if some have been peer/critic reviewed or mentioned in non AIS publications, some notability could be established.Wyss 19:59, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • and 100 self-published ebooks is even less notable. --Rlandmann 23:58, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think you've got a point there, Rlandmann. Wyss 00:03, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The fourth section his math discoveries since they are connected to his religion i.e. creator forumula, creator proof, planet distance formula an argument for intelligent design

Hmm, maths "discoveries". Like his 2nd prime law "LAW 2: ODD NUMBERS ENDING IN A 5 ARE NOT PRIME ABOVE 7." Forgive me if I say "duh". F cam 19:57, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Without peer-review, Ennis' thoughts on mathematical topics are not notable. Wyss 19:59, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Speaking of which, I haven't even seen any positive peer-review for Ennis as a numerologist (not counting USENET sockpuppets). Wyss 00:10, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)


This is the proposed TOH changes that should add a nice encyclopedia touch to the article

TOH - Tempel of 'Hayah

Sollog is the founder of the Temple of 'Hayah, it uses the acronym of TOH in most literature, TOH belief is that "all life is part of God and therefore God." [3] It is a Torah observed belief system based on 'Hayah being the name revealed to Moses when asked what was the name of God. [4] TOH claims membership in almost every nation on earth (due to it being spread by the internet since 1995). It has operated 'join' pages under several web sites over the years. To join one has to admit God created earth and gave Moses the Torah. [5] TOH also claims that members are tax exempt due to biblical law set in the Torah. [6] TOH also has it's own version of the Torah translated by Sollog, it is vastly different than modern English editions. [7]

  • Links in the article provide access to that information, for which there is insufficient evidence of notability. Wyss 20:01, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Actually, I think that version is a lot better than what we have now. We haven't really had any detailed description of what TOH believes up to this point (which is why I've found the various howls of protest over "religious hate" to be pretty bizarre - we haven't even described TOH beliefs, let alone denegrated them...) However, I think we need to lose the multiple links (to avoid the spamvertising effect), and need to add that there is a commonly-held perception that the religion has few if any members other than Sollog himself, and that there is no independent evidence to suggest otherwise. --Rlandmann 00:06, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes. One must bear in mind that Ennis' AIS websites will inevitably gain traffic from this article and its mirrored copies and most of their content is behind PayPal links.
Moreover, given the overwhelming lack of evidence for any actively participating TOH membership, this should be mentioned plainly in the article. Wyss 00:18, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Rlandmann, I'd like to see a detailed description of what 'Hayah believes, too. But I suspect it won't be possible to make neutral, factually correct statements about what is, after all, something that only exists in the mind of Ennis. For example, is it correct to say that 'Hayah is based on the Torah? I doubt Jewish scholars would agree with that assessment. At best, you could say that 'Hayah claims to be based on the Torah. --Dbenbenn 01:05, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Current Predictions?

Does anyone feel like creating a section on what he's predicting now? I'm curious, and can't be bothered to wade through Sollog's site. --posted anonymously by 220.240.179.187, (contribs, apparently not a sock puppet)

http://www.stopnukes.com states Sollog has warned since 1995 the age of nuke terrorism is coming. He says the first three areas to fall victim to nuke terrorism is Israel, Rome and Washington DC.
Recent quake warnings were issued for major quakes on New Years Day and March 1st or March 21st (equinox of spring)
Sollog fans speculate Ides of Augustus will connect to death date of the Pope it means Ides (middle 13th or 15th) of a month. So far it seems it refers to months connected to Octavian Augustus or August and October. It is said to be perhaps connected to the moon phases as well, so the 13 and 15th days of moon in the suspect months are thought to be keys to the Sollog pope riddle.
Asteroid impact off the coast of China in the evening in August is another Sollog prediction many of his fans discuss.
--posted anonymously by 210.212.218.35, (contribs)

Legal problems section

I'd like to edit the "Legal problems" section of the article, replacing the first line with

According to Howard Altman of the Philadelphia City Paper (Altman 1996), Sollog has had various legal problems, culminating in his arrest by the United States Secret Service.
Ennis' legal problems, according to Altman, started in 1987 ...

I feel this change makes it clear that the whole section is based on one source. However, the section in question has been changed by a presumed sockpuppet. I'm not going to revert, since I've already reverted three times today. And I don't want to complicate life for whoever does revert. So I'm putting my changes here instead. --Dbenbenn 20:38, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I reverted back a few hours, sorry in advance if I screwed up. Wyss 20:43, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks! I notice you restored the quotes around "religious name". I'd remove them if I hadn't promised Alterego not to touch that opening paragraph. --Dbenbenn 20:56, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
IANAL, but I believe WP:3RR does not apply to reverting vandalism. If you're talking about reverting User:203.113.132.50's wholesale deletion of useful material, I'd consider that vandalism. However, it's probably best to err on the side of caution and take turns reverting. --MarkSweep 21:38, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Many thanks for the zap, Dbenbenn! ;) Wyss 01:20, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mirror Roulette - A Spamming Tactic

Although Ennis' constant edits seem futile and less than rational, there's a bit of method involved in this spammer's madness. Wiki is mirrored on dozens and dozens of sites globally, which each update their content sporadically (and sometimes don't re-update for some time). By continually pasting in his advertising content, he increases the chance that a brief incarnation will be picked up by a mirror. I'm not suggesting any response to this, only pointing out a probable (and from his perspective, somewhat rational) motive for what we're seeing. Wyss 02:41, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The probability of a reader hitting a version with soan on it here is the same as that of a reader hitting a version with spam on it on a mirror though. It's merely that whereas here there's going to be a reasonably fixed and low percentage of people seeing the advertising version, on the mirrors there's a large chance nobody will see the advertising version and a small chance lots of people will. &#0xfeff; --fvw* 02:53, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)

It's more likely that he's just crazy. There's no point in speculating on the motives of vandals and loonies. Gamaliel 03:06, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There's crazy and crazy. My guess is that he's rational. He knows what he wants (money and celebrity), and he's relentless (and very tiresome) in pursuit of what he wants. -- Hoary 03:13, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)

Agreed that there's not much point in speculating... I was just remarking that I wouldn't be surprised if in a few months one could do a Google search on Sollog and hit number 45 happened to be a ghost page from globularpedia.nz [sic] with a spam version of the article.

For the record, I'd like to cite the following edit note (on the article's page history) made by an Ennis sockpuppet:

04:22, 19 Dec 2004 24.6.7.120 (sollog business ventures are not major things he is known for they should be removed but for now gave it an order of importance as per search relevance)

Here, Ennis slips up, referring to the deathporn, auction and other commercial AIS sites as sollog business ventures, making it clear these activities are not those of a publisher beyond his control, but his own. Wyss 12:53, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Excellent Prophecy Post

WTF why is this excellent post being removed? It shows both points of views. I think I remember someone here asking for examples of the top Sollog prophecies. Don't remove it This and the lengthy passage below were added anonymously at 03:16, 2004 Dec 19 by 200.31.23.195, whose contributions to Wikipedia have all been "Sollog"-related.

Prophecies

Sollog is best known for his prophecies, some of them use quatrain style similar to Nostradamus. Sollog has been called a modern day Nostradamus by many of his fans and in the media. Sollog started writing his Prophecies in 1995. They first appeared in full page newspaper ads in weeklies such as the City Paper in Philadelphia. In 1996 Sollog's prophecies started to appear on the Internet. Since 1997 Sollog's prophecies have all been released to Usenet by his fans in either alt.prophecies.nostradamus or sci.earthquakes.

The most famous Sollog prophecies according to his fans are his Prophecy about the coming age of Nuke Terrorism. Sollog says the first three locations hit by nuke terrorism are Israel, Rome and Washington DC [8] In 1995 Sollog was detained by the US government after he faxed a warning about a 'BIG BANG' on April 19th to 60 major executives in the US media. In case 96cv1499 Sollog named the 60 Executives and produced documents to verify he was detained for the Oklahoma City bombing. Sollog was also investigated by the FBI for various warnings he issued about 911 and terrorism in New York City in September. Fans of Sollog say this warning about a major emergency in DC on 911 was a clear hit. It was issued on 9/11/1998 three years to the exact date of 911. [9] On 9/02/1997 Sollog issued the infamous 902 Prophecy, in it he warns of major terrorism larger than the Oklahoma City bombing and he mentions New York City over and over. [10] Howard Altman did an article on the Sollog 902 Prophecy and stated he warned the Whitehouse and the New York City mayors office about it. The article appeared ironically in the 9/11/1997 issue of the City Paper. http://citypaper.net/articles/091197/article024.shtml Skeptics of Sollog claim the Prophecy was meaningless. Fans of Sollog point out that the Big Bang in the Big Building for September was a clear 911 hit. Skeptics say Sollog said the pope would die and didn't. Fans say the pope of Satan mentioned by Sollog did die in the month he said, that was Anton La Vey the founder of the Church of Satan who was also known as the Pope of Satan, a term used directly by Sollog in the Prophecy. Skeptics say Bill Clinton did not die, Sollog fans say Bill Clinton suffered political death by his impeachment. Sollog fans also point out that the date Sollog gave was the date Clinton started his affair with Monica Lewinsky which led to his impeachment. Skeptics point out none of the New York City media named by Sollog in 1997 died, Sollog fans say most of the media celebrities he named suffered bizarre tragedies. Rush Limbaugh went deaf in October 2001 and was fired from his job in October 2003, he also had to check into a substance abuse program in October 2003. Rudy Guilliani was struck with cancer and Howard Stern who always bragged how great his marriage was saw a sudden divorce strike him.


Another major Prophecy of Sollog is known as 'The 113 Prophecy'. In this Prophecy Sollog warned of March 11th several times and mentioned how other dates that had 113 in their numbering were future dates for rare tragic events such as major terrorism, plane crashes and train disasters. After Sollog released the 113 Prophecy [11] the Shuttle Columbia tragedy occurred, it was the 113th shuttle mission. On March 11th 2004 the Madrid Train Massacre occurred, March 11th was the only date mentioned more than one time by Sollog.

There are several other famous Sollog prophecies, but his fans say these are perhaps the best examples of his work.

  • So far though, we've not seen a single, head-on, accurate prophecy from Sollog that didn't require stretching either on the date, location, or other factor. "Big bang in the big building" doesn't say much. Tall buildings have always been a favorite target for terrorists, and they tried to hit the WTC before.
113 can be interpreted so many ways. January 13 or 31, November 3, March 11, the 113th day of the year (leap or otherwise), and that's just as dates. I haven't even gotten to airline numbers, flight numbers, social security numbers.
And what I've been wondering is that why Sollog is only able to predict disasters, but never gets any info from his "sources" on how to keep them from happening. Or more particularly, why Sollog refuses to warn NASA/New York/Rudy Giuliani/Rush Limbaugh/Bill Clinton/etc when he claims to know what's going to happen down to the very day?
Some places have an odd law that states that if you know a crime or similar is going to happen you're obligated to report it or you can be charged as aiding it or as an accessory. Doesn't Sollog feel moral obligation to deliver accurate and useful warnings to those involved?
But the point I'm trying to make is that nowhere have any of us seen any accuracy from these "prophecies" that would be considered more than stretched applicability (see The 23 enigma). Because he doesn't warn, that means his prophecies aren't accurate enough to make them useful. Because he can only find a relation between his prophecies and the events after the fact, that means that his prophecies are bogus, or as near to it as makes no odds.
For a claim of accuracy, we need demonstrated accuracy. To do this, I propose the following experiment:
1) Post on this Talk page a Sollog prophecy in its entirety for a disaster that has not happened yet but will in say, the coming 90 days.
2) Postexactly what it predicts (what/where/who/why/when). Vague guesses are not allowed, we want specific dates, locations, and all that.
3) After the event occurs, prove beyond reasonable doubt that Sollog was nowhere in the area trying to "prove" the prophecy himself.
Then, we'll be happy to post the accuracy results. Inky 21:21, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Added material that should be discussed first

This keeps getting added and reverted. I'm not familiar with the entire history, but it seems to me that this material is unnecessary, since it is already discussed in a more NPOV manner later in the article. However, I'm posting it here so that it can be discussed. (Please don't just put it back in without any discussion whatsoever, though.) -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 03:22, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

These claims have already been discussed, ad nauseam, and rejected by everybody here other than various IP numbers and newly arrived users (aka sockpuppets). PS the passage in question appeared both above and below Aranel's post; I've removed the duplication below. -- Hoary 03:41, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)

Logical format for this article

This article should cover the main things Sollog is famous for, searching search engines and usenet shows why people wrote or discussed him

Number one is his prophecies, search for Sollog and you get a ton of hits, search for sollog and prophecies and you get almost as many hits so PROPHECIES is key thing about why Sollog is even in this site

Number two believe it or not is Nostradamus so the Sollog connections to Nostradamus is needed, his translations, his 1566 only known first edition, etc

The line of Sollog is the next top search

Then Sollog and God is a high hit search

There are almost no posts about Sollog and arrested or Sollog and legal

Other key search hits for Sollog are

911 Earthquakes Diana

So the article should touch on what Sollog is actually famous for

His prophecies, his Nostradamus stuff, the line of Sollog, God, 911, Quakes and Diana

Oh, SPAM is a high search hit as well, so it should be mentioned, some say Sollog is nothing but Spam, but, his fans say all the spam is from his skeptics

Do searches for yourself and you'll see what Sollog is really known for, it isn't conspiracies, and skeptics and arrests ....Posted anonymously at 03:55, 2004 Dec 19 by 24.6.7.120, whose contributions since October have been singlemindedly devoted to "Sollog"

Comment It is noted that a Google search will for the most part bring back hits on the years of spam Ennis has contributed to the noise level of the Internet and USENET. Wyss 04:00, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If you want, I can re-write this article based on what Google tells me about him, but don't blame me if it bears a strong resemblance to the following:
Sollog, also frequently referred to as Pennis[sic], is a notorious Usenet spammer, psychic, and crank. He is best known for his near-miss on predicting the attacks on the World Trade Center, and was once arrested by the Secret Service for threatening the President. He claims to be God, and has frequently filed lawsuits under that name against people who disagree with him.
--Carnildo 04:10, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Like Carnildo says and my my my, this article certainly has become the revert war predicted in the original VfD, hasn't it? Looking over that page ([12]), I notice that several people mentioned the article would require indefinite protection. I recommend it (I'd recommend deletion, but Ennis' decrees make that too grotesque to contemplate). Wyss 04:36, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I remember them telling me in grade school that if you ignore someone they will go away. I don't see any sore thumbs with the article in it's current state, so perhaps we can just ignore the dude and revert all of his edits back to the last good one by a Wikipedian. After a while he will get bored with us, like most antagonizers. Considering he has been doing this for a decade and really does seem to believe himself, i'm probably going to be eating this delusional worldview along with my foot in the next ten minutes. --Alterego 04:57, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've never heard of him as "Pennis", and I've no reason to believe that he's frequently filed lawsuits. (Endlessly wittering on about filing lawsuits, yes.) Having a revert war with The Many Masks Of John P. Ennis is a waste of time, but the silver lining is that it's a waste of his time too, and while he's doing his hardest to turn Wikipedia into another sales channel he's not sollogizing usegroups and the like. -- Hoary 04:53, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)

That nickname isn't by any means universal but I've seen it many times while searching forums and newsgroup caches . Wyss 04:59, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
My view on the revert war is that it's cheap entertainment -- drop in every now and then to see what the latest sockpuppet rantings are, then revert them if they haven't been already. --Carnildo 05:07, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The sock puppets are energetic today!

and I've used up today's revert allowance. One of you others who's not John P. Ennis will have to take a bash. Or of course the page could be frozen till the current mania has subsided. -- Hoary 05:12, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm out until this evening too. They are rather active today, perhaps a protection is in order. &#0xfeff; --fvw* 05:16, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)
I'm not trying to get you guys banned, but if you read WP:3RR you'll see that the Three Revert Rule does not apply to "correcting simple vandalism". I wish there was a technical way of auto-blocking any anonymous user who's been inactive for two weeks or more and whose first five edits include either this talk page or the "Sollog" article. --MarkSweep 05:36, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I know; I'd read this. Had the page been replaced with the normal stuff about how Wikipedia sucks and how "Sollog" is god, I'd have had no qualms about reverting it. But what has going on is arguably not vandalism. If tried for the, uh, wikicrime of deleting it, I'd claim that it was blatantly bloody-minded refusal to consider arguments that had already taken place. Anyway, I was getting bored of the job of reverting, so this was my handy cop-out line. -- Hoary 05:52, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)

The quotes around "religious" may have re-appeared by accident through the numerous anti-vandalism reverts, but I agree with EveryKing (who has removed them) that they're not necessary. Wyss 13:20, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[sockpuppet vandalism has been blanked here, users are invited to see it in the page history] Wyss 13:25, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

wyss guilty of vanalism he is removing all sollog fan info as vandalism

[pasting here by anonymous IP 209.201.13.34 of "sollog fan approved" version of article removed by me, Mark. You can view it in the page's history if you wish. - Mark 13:49, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)]

You just beat me to it, Mark. Actually I momentarily misread the underpunctuated charge as "venalism". Heady stuff! Incidentally, I'd be interested in genuine "fan info". Is there any credible info on the size of the fanbase? I'd tentatively estimate it as two (John and the missus). -- Hoary 14:00, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)

This was an edit summary by one of the anonymous contributors: "Sollog fans have approved this page, it will be posted over and over by Sollog fans, we outnumber the few who are harassing sollog with false info here, by Sollog fan in NL". Unfortunately for the anonymous contributor(s), I sincerely doubt that the number of Sollog fans in total outnumber the number of Wikipedia Administrators, let alone the number of active Wikipedians. Also unfortunately for the anonymous contributor(s), the Sollog fan-approved version of the article is not the Wikipedia-approved version of the article, as determined by majority consensus. As a result, wholesale article replacements of this form will not be tolerated and will be construed as vandalism, and thus in accordance with Wikipedia policy will continue to be reverted beyond three reverts. - Mark 14:06, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

By the way, that sockpuppet "in NL" was actually behind the firewall of an anon o.p in Poland. Wyss 14:09, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

WOW 9 reverts by wyss within 24 hours

so much for your rules

Dearest sockpuppet, reverts made to delete vandalism are not covered by the three reverts rule, which applies to editing. Wyss 14:34, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wyss is rv'ing even the discussion page now haha

why are you people letting wyss use his bias to rv article 10 times in one day and to remove all recent pro sollog posts in discussions

wyss is out of control and making this site look like a joke

The difference between you and me, dearest sockpuppet, is that they know if they ask me to stop, I will. Wyss 14:51, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

By the way, these latest contributions have come from what appears to be a broadband connection in Sweden, http://www.bredband.com/se/, customer account c-876f73d5.06-36-67626717. Wyss 14:59, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It (like all the other IPs replacing the article with the "sollog fan" version) seems to be an anon open proxy. Proteus (Talk) 15:08, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Two things

One: Many of the "mathematical discoveries of Sollog" were not his. For example, the fact that

1/89 = 0.0112359... (the first five nonzero digits being Fibonacci numbers)

is not his original discovery. It's long been known that, in terms of formal power series,

\frac{1}{1-x-x^2} = 1 + x + 2 \cdot x^2 + ... + F_{n+1} \cdot x^n + \ldots.

When x = 0.1, you get:

\frac{100}{89} = 1 + 0.1 + 0.02 + 0.003 + 0.0005 + 0.00008 + \ldots

Therefore, these results are neither surprising, nor mystical, nor discovered originally by Mr. Sollog. I would guess that other mathematical truths of which he claims discovery have also already been discovered.

Two: I believe I've heard him ask for deletion of his page at one of his rant pages. He's clearly notable, but if he wants gone, I don't think Wikipedia will be at much of a loss to delete his page. Mike Church 16:18, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sollog didn't claim 1/89 was his discovery, he revealed in 1995 several hidden sequences within numbers, one was a 24 deep sequence within primes that is also hidden within fibonacci numbers, both are 24 number deep sequences, he also revealed in 1995 hidden sequences in exponent tables, there are only six that repeat infinitely and he used that fact to prove FLT in 2 pages. In 2002 another mathematician claimed to have 'discovered' the same 24 deep sequence in fibonacci, something Sollog did seven years earlier. 198.165.90.74
I wonder why this proof of fermat's last theorem hasn't been published in a peer reviewed journal? Ah yes I know it's because it's a nonsensical rant (written in all caps on the page I found it) which doesn't proove anything. woo. His rant also prooves x^n={\left(\frac{x}{\sqrt{x}}\right)}^{2n} yawn. F cam 17:04, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
So you need to reread the article and point to where Sollog claims 1/89 is his, he merely put some interesting little know facts about Fibonacci in the work before he tied it into his prime and exponent sequences using the same technique, that being base 9 number reduction.
This scholarly reply from 198.165.90.74 appears to have originated from another open proxy on a Verio server in NY owned by http://www.cheznoo.net in Newfoundland, Canada. Wyss 16:48, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Base 9 number reduction being a posh name for adding up all the digits in a number. Ho hum arithmetic modulo 9, now there's a new area of maths. His harmonic exponent tables are just the nth power residues mod 9. They cycle. What a discovery. Writing down those tables for the first 13 values doesn't prove fermat's last theorem, sorry.F cam 17:04, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
I've already tried to debunk his mathematical "theories" on /archive2#Status as mathematician. All of his results are well-known and/or already published in peer-reviewed maths journals. --MarkSweep 20:42, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

YES DELETE THE SOLLOG PAGE 198.165.90.74

No, don't delete. Sollog found Wikipedia, said "Look, free advertising!" and posted his page. Then his nightmare began as many editors, led by Rlandeman initially, made the article into a factual account instead of a fanboy link-laden grammar-impaired tribute. Sollog got more than he bargained for in us! A2Kafir 16:50, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think his motives are irrelevant. Punishing him for taking advanatage of "free advertising" is a poor reason to keep a WP article on him, and alone I don't think it stands. Besides, do we know for sure that he was the original author? Mike Church 16:55, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Based on the available evidence it can be safely assumed that John P. Ennis aka Sollog was the original author. Wyss 17:05, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
keep this page as a piece of wikipedia history and a monument to peer review. sollog thought he could use this as free advertising, but when peer review rolled in and turned it from a tract to a factual account of his life, he bitched and moaned and tried to pee all over wikipedia because we wouldn't remove his monument to his own stupidity. besides, this is a (relatively) factual account of the internet phenomenon known as Sollog, so it technically belongs in wikipedia. here's to the law of unintended consequences. Chumpchange

Deletion

If you want to nominate the page for deletion, the deletion-nomination process is at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion.

If Sollog himself wrote the original article, there's a high likelihood that it can be deleted on those grounds alone. Wikipedia has a soft policy against auto-biographical entries and a lot of such pages, even for famous people, are deleted. Mike Church 16:55, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Although I think deleting the article would be grotesque on a certain level (Ennis will proclaim on the USENET that wiki caved in to the demands of his sockpuppet council), I would vote for doing so (as I did originally). After all the research I've done into this character, I still don't think Ennis is notable. Wyss 17:01, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I come at it the other way. I believe Ennis is notable (though maybe not important, as they are different things) because, if I recall correctly, I remember hearing about some of his Usenet rants on CNN. For example, there was brief mention of his 9/11/98 prediction on CNN, as I recall. It's not much, but enough to count as "notable".
That said, as a skeptic on most paranormal claims, I agree with the charge that he was just playing "disaster roulette" and don't think he has any meaningful claim to fame. But he is well-known (certainly now) and therefore, arguably notable. Still, if he wants it gone, and WP has no interest in maintaining it, then why not delete it? Mike Church 17:11, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't think that I can ever recall any specific wiki policy saying that non-notables shouldn't have articles. Or that they should be deleted. But I'd say that Ennis is notable for his repeated Usenet presence, this article, predictions, and spamming both this page and Slashdot. This may be notable enough for WP:-) Estel (talk) 17:14, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
I'd say there's also an issue of principle here. I wouldn't want to see Wikipedia being bullied into deleting an article because some obsessive individual keeps vandalising it via open proxies. -- ChrisO 17:38, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

While I agree that Ennis himself is not notable, IMO the nearly unanimous public reaction to his dramatically virulent claims of notability is. That reaction is what survived the first VfD, and is what has engendered such a dedicated watch on this article. Fire Star 17:39, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm... So far, I don't detect much consensus for deletion. I tried, Ennis ;) Wyss 17:46, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The article went through VfD quite recently. Re-listing it would be an abuse unless some significant new reason has developed to change the deletion debate. What's actually happened since the end of the VfD vote is that more people who demonstrably aren't Sollog have edited the article, taking it even further away from any charge that it's vanity. JamesMLane 18:35, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As before, I voted to keep the article on the grounds that the inevitable vandalism would be a good way of rooting out wrongdoers - a similar argument to that put forth by L7 in Wargasm, their classic take on the military-industrial death machine - although I had no real opinion as to the validity or worthiness of Sollog itself. I have to admit that I was also slightly annoyed that Eva Ionesco had passed through the VFD process, but that's by-the-by. However, I am genuinely impressed by the way that this article has gone; it's a good example of how an unpromising subject can be given form and shape, and it's also a diverting read. Wikipedia helps me while away the boring hours at work, and this talk page alone has been a masterclass in how low a human being can stoop. -Ashley Pomeroy 18:56, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The many (ab)uses of Sollog

The latest vandalism to the article by user 194.63.235.157 appears to have originated via an open proxy on some sort of educational server in Thessaloniki, Greece. Apparently, Ennis continues to assert the fiction that Sollog fans from all over the world have organized to have their way with wiki (the assertions that these are TOH members have faded for the moment). They all use open proxies and have typically performed identical pastes of a "Sollog fan approved" text into the article space. Wyss 20:01, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If nothing else, he's doing a good job of identifying open proxies for me to block... :-p -- ChrisO 20:13, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I was about to say that at the very least Sollog/Ennis has ferreted out a large number of open proxies. Perhaps he deserves the Upside-Down Barnstar of Black-Hat Network Analysis. --MarkSweep 20:48, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
his site has a list of over 100,000 proxies that they are passing out to fans to post anonymously here and they are giving out instructions on how to hit the busiest pages, you guys are in for a war, look at his paypal info almost 1000 buyers wiki is only 2400, dozens or hundreds of people using 100,000 proxies will crush this site if you ask me
Comment The vandalism rate indicates one individual hopping from proxy to proxy. Wyss 00:41, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I would guess that he's using some kind of script to find and exploit them. It's no big deal - they're just block-on-sight fodder now. -- ChrisO 22:17, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Not that anyone's been holding their breath on this one, but his anti-wiki forums (which one might expect to be the centre of such activity) don't feature a list of 100,000 proxies, or even one. Wyss 04:17, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Religious name vs. alias

I just think it's hilarious that Ennis first changed "religious name" to "alias" [13], then tried to change it back [14]. Maybe the first change wasn't Ennis; only one edit from that IP though. --Dbenbenn 21:07, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

He may have been trying to set me up for something (Wyss vandalizes...!). Earlier on this talk page, after saying I agreed with him that pen name wasn't appropriate, one of my suggestions was alias. Wyss 21:26, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Latest sockpuppet drive-by paste was by user 148.244.150.58 via an AT&T server in Nuevo Leon, Mexico. Wyss 21:31, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Then 203.197.169.19 (which resolves to a non-working tataelxsi.co.in) from a particularly dark looking proxy a few hops from a http://www.vsnl.net.in/ server somewhere in India ...looks like it's in Bombay. Nice one, Ennis. (Just noticed the comment in the edit box) Wyss 21:52, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sollog vandalism elsewhere on Wikipedia

Just noticed that Ennis now appears to be hitting articles across Wikipedia - see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=148.244.150.58 , which shows vandalism to a slew of articles linked from the main page. I assume this is the next step in his campaign of vandalism. If people block his proxies, could they please check out the "contributions" that he's making elsewhere? -- ChrisO 22:20, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I also just reverted his vandalism on the European Union article. Seems he edited a lot more. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=208.63.158.141. Impi 22:33, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've seen info in several sollog sites explaining how to use proxies since you guys are banning all people posting positive info. What's wrong with being anonymous behind a proxy?
Dearest sockpuppet, because it's you :) Wyss 00:01, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Anonymous proxies are the source of an inordinate and unacceptable level of vandalism. Wikipedia policy permits and encourages us to block proxies (see Wikipedia:Blocking policy). Any proxy posting to this article or talk page will be blocked on sight. -- ChrisO 00:09, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sollog paypal rating huge (er, not)

Wiki is a top 200 alexa site and it's paypal rating is 2400

Sollog's site use several paypal accounts, his main paypal is almost 1000 which is huge since he has recurring billing and clients that buy multiple items (books, videos, memberships, etc)

His other sites have lesser accounts from 200 to 400

  • A quick look at some PayPal storefronts showed volume ratings of over 30,000 for clearly independent, "unknown" ecommerce sites listed there. Wyss 23:52, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So is no one is buying his prophecies then why is his paypal account almost as strong as wikipedia?

  • His numbers would include the deathporn and as already mentioned, at under 1000 this would be on the very low side. Wyss 23:57, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Food for thought

  • Yes indeed. Barely one step ahead of the bailiffs, huh? Anyway, thanks awfully for the insight ;P Wyss 23:57, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(Above edit by 80.58.50.174, proxy server located in Spain - JohnyDog 23:46, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC))

Do these "ratings" mean something? I'm not that familiar with Paypal; does Wikipedia have anything to do with Paypal? Or is it just the usual Ennis nonsense? --Dbenbenn 23:54, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If Ennis' reference to wiki's PayPal volume rating is correct, it would be on the minimal side, all to be expected, since last I heard, wiki isn't an ecommerce merchant. He does this... making comparisons out of context and with illusory baselines. Wyss 00:00, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Latest vandalism by 194.63.239.27 seemed to come from another educational server, looks like a suburb of Athens, Greece. As mentioned above he's probably using scripts, and the IPs do appear to be blocked almost on sight by wikipedians. Wyss 00:29, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Son of light, light of God"

It's very widely reported that "Sollog" is an acronym standing for "Son of light, light of God." Why doesn't the article mention this? Does the statement that the name is derived from "Sol" and "Logos" a new explanation, or was the old one erroneous? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:54, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's been in and out of the article repeatedly during the revert wars. I suspect it got lost somewhere along the way. --Carnildo 00:55, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think it was last taken out yesterday morning. --Dbenbenn 01:30, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes, the "son of light, light of God" was taken out because it appears to be a backronym. I added a sentence explaining that. --Dbenbenn 01:34, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A while ago, I did some digging, and the earliest usenet post I could find (c. 1996) to make reference to "Son of Light, Light of God" suggested that it was the name under which Ennis first published his prophecies in the Philadelphia City (before Altman started making fun of him). --Rlandmann 04:00, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Protected?

I thought the page was supposed to be protected? I might be wrong though. --Sgeo | Talk 02:22, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

It's been in and out of protection a few times over the past week. Right now, it's being used in a game of whack-a-mole with a number of open proxies. --Carnildo 02:27, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Don't look now

Don't look now, but it seems that the wikipediasucks forums have been discovered by the GNAA. --Carnildo 02:27, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A single, bland post about VfD from someone signing off as GNAA with a little devil graphic. Most of the posts (there aren't that many) are Ennis sockpuppets, talking to himself, often with vulgarities. One ends with the line, "Damn I'm good." Wyss 03:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The wikipediasucks forums are disappointingly boring. Looking at the members list it appears that most of the members are either wikipedians or slashdot members. I suspect John deleted all the remotely interesting posts and blocked the posters, just like he did with my first sockpuppet there. Gamaliel 03:49, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ennis Poetry

From one of his forums...

Yeah wikif***, like jitterbug but only ragtime dance.
Do the wikif*** wickf*** yeah yeah/

When will Bennett become the arcangel Gabreil.
Hail Mary Fully of grace. Lord append your souls. Rain go away.

Why do you keep coming back to my brain in the morning. Go.

____________________________________________________

It was the last line that got me. Wyss 02:45, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Karma works that way, doesn't it? One would think a god would've known that... Fire Star 04:40, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Please tell me he composed some more music so one can sing and dance to these awesome lyrics!!!Micah 07:54, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It reminds me of Kenneth Higney's infamously scronky 'Attic Demonstration' LP [15] -Ashley Pomeroy 09:23, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm convinced - he is a genius! -- ChrisO 09:46, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Can you plese provide link, I am unfamiliar with this verse, it does not look like Sollog's style, are you playing game? Nltoh
Dearest sockpuppet Nltoh, I believe you wrote it, so you should certainly recognize the style. Wyss 20:30, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, it's limerick time!

There once was a prophet named Sollog
Who tried to use Wiki like his blog
His writing was confused
Which led to editors bemused
By his text through which they must slog.

A2Kafir 20:16, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)


There once was a prophet from Broward County
who through proxies vandalised a fair amount. He
    used more than one pseudonym
    and all attempts to tutor him
failed. Someone put out a coward bounty!

A sockpuppet army like Sollog's
requires mere miniature bollocks.
    Words of doom and of menace
    reach his puppets' antennas.
With friends like these, who needs Ennis?

Oh slippery Sollog! Your prophecy
is as hard and as fast as, say, toffee. See,
    it lacks specificity
    and just serves as publicity.
If we ban you, we'll let you getophezy.

You apparently had your own theory:
"What I post here, will stay. For, ideally,
    I can quickly revert
    what some people insert
to render my prose more NPOV."

Now that you've been duly anthologized,
isn't it time you apologized
    for the spam links you posted
    to those hate sites you hosted
and the numerous times we were Sollogized?

--MarkSweep 01:26, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think giving Sollog a limerick overstates his importance. He doesn't merit even a haiku, let alone five full lines. JamesMLane 04:41, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
True enough, I think, but I like MarkSweep's last line... Wyss 04:50, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
With friends like these, who needs Ennis?

As much as I enjoy watching the ongoing feud between a troll and the maintainers I would humbly request that the Wikipedians try to adhere to item #4 listed at the very top: "No name calling, no personal attacks. Portions of comments containing personal attacks will be removed." It reflects poorly upon the maintainers when they stoop to the level of mockery that Ennis is attempting to do (albeit with better spelling and grammar in most cases).

This vaguely resembles Simpsons episode 3F04 - the one with the song "Just don't look" Simpsons lyrics

--Shagie 08:10, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hackers take down Wikipedia?

http://www.247news.net/2004/20041220-wiki.shtml

How long was this site down today?

Not all too many hours, from about 3:21 (UST) onwards. Wikibooks was down a bit earlier... I don't think that Sollog has spammed there yet (better not provide any ideas) Estel (talk) 20:25, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

What was the reason? 148.223.48.226 17:28, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC) (Unanonymized by [[User:Kyrin|Kyrin\talk]] 17:44, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC))

A few hours for server upgrades F cam 17:32, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
better fire your IT person, server upgrades when done right take minutes, someone posted ping results from this site on a forum, the ping went unanswered, then it came back later as protocol not installed, so it looks like a complete core meltdown on the bromis server, guess wiki can't afford a mirror in house, most are saying it was a DoS attack due to lenght of time
The above advice was posted by 202.63.163.66 via a Concentric server in the San Francisco, California area, prob. an open proxy. Wyss 16:24, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Good grief - has this guy no shame? Now he's boasting about his vandalism of Wikipedia... -- ChrisO 18:58, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It's amazing looking at those "news" articles how many grammatical mistakes, and downright self-contradiction gets into what is obviously the most professional of websites. Estel (talk) 19:12, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
Sollog's most prominent (grammar) problem is run-on sentences. It's like he never made it through seventh-grade composition or something. A2Kafir 20:01, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Doesn't Wikipedia have a disclaimer of the validity of information and their use? [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 20:13, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

From the linked page: "Some see this recent action as the death knoll for Wikipedia.org since it is taking up a ton of volunteer time to try to stop this protest editing." Hee. Heehee. Ha.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!! -- Khym Chanur 01:14, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Heh heh. As I mentioned below... he still hasn't figured it out. Wyss 01:19, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is wikipedia a cult?

[vandalism deleted, see it in page history Wyss 20:28, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC) ]

User Nltoh's only contributions have been Sollog-related and included vandalism to the article. Wyss 20:32, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wyss, I understand, but please bear with me putting this back. I'll explain at the bottom:

That's ok (sorry if I over-reacted... am I out of control yet? :) Wyss 20:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps exasperated like anyone that looks at this page... if slightly amused Estel (talk) 20:52, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Start of very long 'cult' posting

I see this on forum for Sollog. Is this site a cult? Why does he say Sollog site WikipediaSucks.com? Sollog not own that site.

That's a rarity, he owns nearly all of the ones mentioned on here ;) Estel (talk)

Hello Sollog, I saw your Wikipedia sucks website. Unfortunately, I know from experience that you are right. I want to remain anonymous because I am afraid of threats from current Wikipedians who are so devoted to their "achievements" and they get extremely angry about even a little criticism. I sincerely hope that people will be warned against Wikipedia because I do not want other to go through what I went through. Please do distribute the following information to help current and prospective Wikipedians. Thanks from an Ex-Wikipedian

Why would this 'one' post be fractioned like this? It's as if one person has written a short letter, and then signed off.Estel (talk)

There is a lot of controversy with regards to Wikipedia. Vocal critics, most of them are ex-members accuse Wikipedia of being a brainwashing cult that engages extensively in propaganda.

Some indications that Wikipedia is indeed that the cult that vocal critics believe it to be are listed hereunder

1. Vocal critics assert that Wikipedia practices thought reform and indoctrination by demanding people to read and adhere to the NPOV policy. 2. There is documented evidence that the NPOV policy is a form of dogma and it is explicitly stated as "non-negotiable". In other words Wikipedia discourages critical thinking. It should be noted that in many cults, basic principles can not be questioned. The NPOV has numerous detailed prescriptions and even says that some words are taboo, which members call "words to avoid". 3. Wikipedia has utopian ideals. Founder Jimbo Wales has explicitly stated that he wanted to make it the best free on-line encyclopedia in the world. This is a very typical of abusive new religious movements because it will lead to ever increasing demands on members. 4. There is documented evidence that Wikipedia engages in love bombing, a policy that members euphemistically call "be nice to new comers". 5. Members (aka unpaid volunteers) are encouraged to spend large amounts of time on the project without any warning that this may be unhealthy. Note that cults will typically behave the same. An unpaid volunteer is a just a slave who was lured by false promises. 6. Apart from the demands of large amounts of time, Wikpedia also solicits for financial contributions. Many cults engage in this behavior too. 7. Another form of financial exploitation are the legal copies made by commercial websites that use the hard work of idealistic volunteers to make money by advertisement. 8. Some current members openly admit that they are addicted called "Wikipediholics". If Wikipedia were a responsible organization it would advise its members to put a maximum of time devoted to Wikipedia and if necessary advise members to seek professional help. 9. There have been complaints about abuse of power by admins and sysops. Sysops and admins are members who have managed climb in the cult's hierarchy with power over regular members. Abuse of power is a typical complaint of ex-members of cults. 10. Members are drawn ever-deeper into the organization by progressing though Wikipedia's multilayered and growing hierarchy, beginning with initiation into the rank of Administrator. The senior members of Wikipedia state that "There Is No Cabal," but there are few limits on the power wielded by the Arbitration Committee and fewer still on those shadowy figures known as "the Developers." Most cults deny the existence of their highest levels of initiation to newcomers and outsiders. 11. Members of Wikipedia have their own idiosyncratic concepts and language (e.g. "Wikipedians"). This is a clear, generally accepted indication of a cult. 12. Members who break the NPOV dogma of Wikipedia are expelled and even shunned. 13. New members are actively recruited by making advertisements in usenet groups. Current members are encouraged to buy mugs and stickers with the Wikipedia logo to advertize it to colleagues, friends and the general public. Cults are also typically involved in proselytism. 14. Wikipedia is engaged in censorship. This article can not be placed as a serious, regular article in Wikipedia. It would be removed soon. This proves that dissenting opinions are not allowed. Censorship is a very typical behavior of cults.

Some of ex-members' complaints: depression and shattered self-esteem

Vocal critics assert they have fell into a depression after they came to the conclusion that Wikipedia was a sham. They claim that they feel betrayed and suffer from an extremely painful disillusionment and lost all sense of meaning in their lives when they could no longer believe in Wikipedia's utopian ideals. Disgruntled ex-members complain that they suffer from loss of self esteem because they always believed that other people, not they, but ignorant, stupid, wide-eyed, gullible people get sucked in a cult, not intelligent people like them. Some resorted to excessive use of alcohol to compensate for this emotional loss.

Many ex-members, especially those with academic titles are too embarrassed to admit under their real names that they were involved in the Wikipedia project, so they prefer to submit anonymous testimonies. They are afraid that testimonies under their real names will hurt their businesses or academic credibility and that they will be ridiculed. Vocal critis testify that they also met people who got depressed after their ISP was cut off, which, according to critics, is clear proof that Wikipedia has an unhealthy addictive nature. One vocal critics asserts that she met one person who got depressed for months after he got expelled because of non-adherence to the NPOV dogma, that by the way had been accepted without scientific proof of its correctness.

Critics assert that they have been naive to succumb for the tempation of attractive and hence contagious illusions (or memes) disseminated by Wikipedia's adherents who were also attracted because of their their idealistic nature and unfulfilled psychological needs, which was just waiting to be cynically exploited by unscrupulous dishonest bussinessmen. They assert that they have underestimated the influence of communal reinforcement, group think and wishful thinking.

When reading the above mentioned bitter complaints, it will be of no suprise that some ex-members (somewhat pejoratively called apostates) intend to make a website to warn prospective and current members of the dangers of, what they call, getting sucked into Wikipedia's misguided world view and faith. The group of vocal critics also intend to contact the media to, as they say, expose the cultic nature of the Wikipedia project.

Debating the cult label

  • Wikipedia does not explicitly request its

members too sever ties with family and friends but the excessively time consuming practice of collaborative editing leads in practice to neglect contacts with family and friends and to conflicts with them. So the net result is the same.

  • At the moment there is not an extreme form of

charismatic authority in Wikipedia, though it should be noted that co-founder Jimbo Wales' opinions still have a disproportionally strong influence, like a guru, on other members that may come close charismatic authority in its strict sense.

  • Current members of Wikipedia generally resent

being called members of a cult. Members of purported cults do the same, as can be verified in the hundreds of discusion groups all over the internet.

  • It is true that Wikipedia is not a religious

cult, unlike most other purported cults but the concept of cult is not confined to religious groups, for example the notorious People's Temple was in its latter days more a social, political movement than a religious group. Indeed, some controversial new social movements are also classified as cults by cult experts such as Steven Hassan, Rick Ross, the late Margaret Singer Ph.D. Janja Lalich who herself is an ex-member of a political cult, and Michael Langone of the American Family Foundation.

Crisis help line and exit-counseling

If you think that you, a friend or a family members is involved or shows interest in participation in this controversial new social movement then do not hesitate to contact other ex-members who feel that they have become victims of the self-deception or deception perpetrated by the Wikipedia and affiliated projects. Seek information before you or others get hooked and then make an informed choice. There are knowledgeable ex-members who know all the ins and outs of Wikipedia who can do some exit counseling. The exit couseling is free but of professional quality! Please write and support the Ex-Wikipedia support group by sending an email.

It really is worrying that that person (aside from absolutely everything else on this page and the main article) can be bothered to write quite so much that shall get him nowhere whatsoever. The only people reading this page anyway (well... most likely most of them) are Wiki-editors anyway, that have been at least showing an interest in this page and therefore know what stupid, senseless posts that person is posting. There is not a single logical reason for his posting them... ahh well... that was obvious anyway. Estel (talk) 20:44, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
You should see his forums... barren wastelands of sockpuppets... Wyss 20:51, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
To me, this "letter to Sollog" reads like a very skilled troll aimed at Sollog. --Carnildo 21:04, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm reasonably confident the sensation you're having is an artifact of his own, well-known ineptness. Ennis is his own worst troll. Wyss 21:29, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC) (Doe-eyed cult fiend)

end of very long 'cult' posting

DJ Clayworth 20:36, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There are three reasons why I think the post above should be left.

  1. We don't normally remove talk page postings
  2. This is the funniest thig I've read in weeks
  3. I think it shows Wikipedia in a better light if we leave it.

What do I mean by the last? Well, look at the things we are accused of:

  1. We are nice to people
  2. We 'exploit' people by allowing their work to be used for free
  3. We have noble aims ('utopian ideals')
  4. We demand that people read site policies
  5. We want to be the best

Seriously I am proud to have been attacked in this way. I think every word of it should stand. We should make links to it! Humour is, after all, one of the best weapons against the fanatic. DJ Clayworth 20:44, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Would this be a good candidate for BJAODN? It certainly amused me in a black-humour way. — Saxifrage (☎) [[]] 23:43, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And I forgot the best - the proof that we are a cult is that we object to being called a cult. Would the Cult of Sollog agree with that, or would they object to being called a cult? DJ Clayworth 20:48, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I never thought I'd see the day that Wikipedia would be compared to Scientology, etc. Bizarre.A2Kafir 20:41, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Damn you wikipedia and your heinous quest for neutrality! Showing all sides of an issue, now that's a true master plan for indoctrination F cam 20:49, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
Oh my God, I've seen the light. It's all true! Jimbo doesn't love me, he's just after my contributions! It's all part of an evil conspiracy to sap my spirituality and convert it into a dogmatic view of the world's best encyclopedia!
No, wait. That's actually the whole point. Going back to RC patrol now. 82.92.119.11 20:51, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My only regret is that the poster neglected to give the address and email of the Ex-Wikipedia support group ( for apostates as we supposedly call them). This is obviously a serious omission, and since we can't find it out, maybe we should start one. DJ Clayworth 20:54, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've always thought covenant breaker had a nice ring to it. Wyss 21:11, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"Covenant Breaker" would also be a good band name. Maybe for a punk/gospel/country crossover band. --MarkSweep 23:23, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Heavy metal, surely? Add a heavy metal umlaut or two - Cövenant Breäker - and set it on fire so that it looks "hard" on stage. -- ChrisO 23:31, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
How about Kфvëпäпt βrëäkëR? Gamaliel 23:56, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Ok but the songs have to be like, way ranting cultish Wikipediology screed, ya know? Wyss 00:53, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

En pee oh vee, En pee oh vee
Don't rain on me
With your vanity
En pee oh vee, oh vee eff dee
Just take it down
With Jimbology!

... :) Wyss 00:58, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC) (Ranting cultist)

I always imagained Wikipedia song lyrics as semi-intellectual sounding, with lots of long words, but not making complete sense. Kind of like Bohemian Rhapsody but with links. DJ Clayworth 02:23, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Strange; I can't seem to be able to find any Google hits for this widespread organisation. Estel (talk) 20:58, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
The cabal is suppressing it, you fool! Don't you know Jimbo has an inside link into Google? 82.92.119.11 21:00, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and we have a Charismatic leader as well. I'm sure Jimbo will be happy to be told that. DJ Clayworth 20:55, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And he has a beard too! (well, facial fuzz anyway). What self-respecting prophet doesn't? -- ChrisO 23:31, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I now see wikipedia is biased

I try to put in this wiki site correct Sollog information, but I now see 247 news tells the truth once again. All my corrections of error were removed. You use posts in usenet with wrong information about the famous Line of Sollog. It is from south of Seatthle through south of Miami. This is fact and is in many books I have since long time ago by Sollog. Also, I tried to put in correct information about 113 Prophecy and 911 warning but they were deleted. It is now very plain to me that wiki site is biased site. So long. Nltoh

  • Bye, Ennis. Note how the sockpuppet (Nltoh probably = Netherlands TOH) attempts mask his syntax with deliberate grammar errors, but the mild dyslexia is difficult to hide. Wyss 21:04, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC) (Ranting cultist)
He tried to make additional grammatical errors in order to appear foreign. But your average Dutch person, posting to English Wikipedia, would do far better than Ennis would in using English, I suspect.A2Kafir 21:10, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC) (cult acolyte)
You bet your tuckus we would. For one thing, we have these things called plurals and articles (not the encyclopedic kind) in Dutch too. A Dutchman/woman is far more prone to slip up on idiomatic expressions and phrasal ordering than basic stuff like verb inflection. It is now very plain to me that Sollog is silly person. So long. 82.92.119.11 21:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC) (cabal's whipping boy)
I have to agree, having spent a great deal of time on IRC and other places talking with people from other places I've got to say that most of the people I've had the opportunity to talk with are quite capable of near-perfect english, the only things they sometimes slip on it sometimes finding the right word, or (rarely) using a word in the wrong context. Seems people who are more than just a little bit 'net savvy are able to pick up the language quite easily and are usually quite happy to expand their knowledge, usually they don't mind being corrected. (I personally correspond with three people for the sole purpose of critique and comment on their writing in order to help them overcome simple flaws in sentence structure or misuse of various words.) [[User:Kyrin|Kyrin\talk]] 21:26, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC) (MMMmmm, Jello for brains tasty!)
For what it's worth, I think he was trying to simulate an Arab or Indian person speaking English as a second language (the Netherlands, especially Amsterdam, has a high population of non-ethnic Europeans) and as the apparently Dutch person above implied... I know Dutch people who speak English as well as any of us. Wyss 21:17, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I think you're right about the second language thing. Sollog puts a lot of thought into these things, after all. #:-D I'll ask my Arab friends if they've heard of this cool new TOH group... They might want to do something after those boring mosque visits. !-) 82.92.119.11 21:19, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC) (doe-eyed cult peon)

Thank you Nltoh my loyal follower for trying to fix the LIES and SLANDER that is here. Your loyalty will be rewarded. --Sollog 21:29, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is this a sockpuppet of a contributor here in an attempt to make him look even more ridiculous? Man, I'm getting paranoid. 82.92.119.11 21:32, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
(Nope, that wasn't Ennis... likely one of us having a bit of fun) Wyss 21:33, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC) (Ranting cultist)
Yeah, likely. Let's not point fingers here, but personally, I think a wyssard wizard did it. (You see, even experienced speakers make silly spelling mistakes...) 82.92.119.11 21:42, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
As a fun note: I managed to get into an edit conflict with myself, twice. Now tell me again I'm not part of the upper echelons of the WikiCult. B-) 82.92.119.11 21:44, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Nope, not me... I'm too familiar with his style to ever try imitating it without simply copy/pasting stuff from his spam. Wyss 21:54, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it's him. However this is nothing compared to his wonderfully refreshing "cult" rant. -[[User:Ld|Ld | talk]] 02:48, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've never heard Ennis refer to his TOH sockpuppets as followers, he calls them members of TOH or TOH members... nor utter thank you (thanks TOH, maybe)... nor make an interjection of this kind without some sort of vulgarity or insult, like you morons. I'm sure it wasn't him. Wyss 04:08, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I read (maybe on IRC) a claim from a real user that he'd established the User:Sollog account just so no one else could. I think this is "one of us having a bit of fun". I'm too lazy to check, though. I just discovered we have scores of articles using the (non-)word "thusly", and I think dealing with that is more important than Sollog. JamesMLane 09:10, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Full Archive

I made a page combining archives at Talk:Sollog/fullarchive -Sgeo | Talk 21:08, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Ennis' Test

That's right, he still hasn't figured it out. ;) Wyss 22:38, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It came from user 12.73.18.30, via an AT&T dialup in Portland, Oregon USA. Wyss 22:45, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What happened to the logo?

The "TOH" logo won't load. Anyone know why?A2Kafir 22:50, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cache issues. I've purged the page. Works for me now. 82.92.119.11 22:52, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I gather there was/is some sort of problem with one of the image servers. -- ChrisO 22:55, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Wikipedia Cult" posting - Church of Jimbology proposed

Sollog is right - Wikipedia is a cult, and Jimbo is our prophet. I propose we establish the Church of Jimbology in recognition of this fact. (There are some pretty cool exemptions for cults and those robes are snazzy!) All those in favour say aye. ;-) -- ChrisO 23:35, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Would we have to, like, chant and stuff?A2Kafir 00:04, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hare Jimbo
Hare Jimbo
Jimbo Jimbo
Hare Hare Gamaliel 00:14, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Anyone want to buy a used J-meter? -- ChrisO 00:18, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Sort of depends what you used it for... I want to be a high priest by the way! &#0xfeff; --fvw* 01:23, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)
If we get Travolta he could play Ennis in the movie... Wyss 00:42, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC) (Ranting cultist)
Jim Caviezel would be good to play Jimbo... -- ChrisO 08:56, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Erm, apart from being a sucker for (real? just faked?) punishment, he seems to be a bit of a nut (way out there with Gibson). Perhaps he could be induced to play another figure in this tiny melodrama. -- Hoary 09:20, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

Hey. Historical reconstruction of the sort of person Jesus would be. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:29, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sollog and James Randi

It appears that famous skeptic James Randi has had a run-in with Sollog: [16]. If we can find a better source than 247news.net, it's something that could go in the article. Dbenbenn 02:16, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sollog publicly challenged Randi to set parameters to judge a rare quake (above 6.5+), Randi refused. Sollog's parameters were that he would be within 3 days and 250 miles for a 6.5+ Quake http://www.sollog.com/challenge.txt
Randi supporters claim Sollog never submitted the form, that is a lie since a scan of it is on Sollog's site http://www.sollog.com/randi/randichallengeb.jpg
That's proof he filled in the form, not that it was submitted F cam 13:54, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
Meanwhile, James Randi is on my watchlist, as are several other articles that I fear might be sollogized. -- Hoary 02:25, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)
I think the problem is this part of the challenge rules: "Applicants must state clearly what they claim as their special ability, and test procedures must be agreed upon by both parties before any testing will take place. All tests must be designed in such a way that the results are self-evident, and no judging process is required." So Sollog contacts the Randi Foundation and says "Hey, here's my prediction about when a natural disaster is going to strike", and they respond "Your prediction is too vague, after any natural disaster stirkes you could interpret your prediction after the fact to make it look like a hit." If that's what happened, then there won't be any record of it besides at Sollog's sites, unless Sollog sues Randi for refusing to even accept the challenge, or something similar. -- Khym Chanur 03:33, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
I wish Randi kept a record of rejected challenges on his site. Dbenbenn 03:39, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Only stuff I've been finding are echoes of Ennis' various announcements on forums at the time (followed by the usual disparaging comments). As far as I can tell, Ennis refused to comply with Randi's standard application (there seems to have been some telephone contact between them), whereupon Randi dismissed him as "a nut" and apparently didn't think it was significant enough to mention anywhere. Wyss 04:57, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd accept Sollog's challenge. If he posts, to my talk page, the date and place of a 6.5+ earthquake, and he turns out to be right, then I'll put an acknowledgement that he did this on my user page. I have no problem, as long as the date and place are unambiguous. I'll be generous and say he is allowed three predictions. DJ Clayworth 03:53, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'll be even more generous. He just needs to get the date right to within a week, and the place right to within 100 miles. --Carnildo 06:17, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Ha, you'll be lucky. Sollog 'predicted' that a great quake would strike within 100 miles of Easter Island that "many shall mourn". Then he vociferously claimed a hit for one that cracked a few roads in the middle of Argentina! He (or rather sockpuppets) feebly tried to claim it was 100 miles away from Chile which owns Easter Island, but unfortunately it wasn't, or that Easter was an allegory for Santiago del Estero (which it isn't). If he can claim a hit on a quake that kills no one, thousands of miles away in a different country, what chance have you got of getting a straight answer out of him? Of course the answer is none. He buries the misses (e.g. his most recent and laughable GAMES OF DEATH stinker), and plays up the 'hits' which are usually so awful that it's a mystery how he concluded he got anything right in the first place. In fact of course Sloppy knows he is a lousy prophet, otherwise he wouldn't couch his predictions in extremely vague terms, shot gun a dozen or more out at a time, or use numerology to bolster his dismal score. --Cchunder 09:49, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Look, it's the famous usenet troll cardinal chunder aka chunder here, search for his posts and see what a foul mouthed troll he is. The Sollog Easter Quake Prophecy was the first in a long series of famous Sollog quake warnings. THE ONLY 6.5+ quake to occur anywhere in THE WORLD for the WHOLE MONTH of April 2000 http://eqint.cr.usgs.gov/neic/cgi-bin/epic/epic.cgi?SEARCHMETHOD=1&FILEFORMAT=4&SEARCHRANGE=HH&SYEAR=2000&SMONTH=04&SDAY=01&EYEAR=2000&EMONTH=04&EDAY=30&LMAG=6.5&UMAG=9&NDEP1=&NDEP2=&IO1=&IO2=&SLAT2=0.0&SLAT1=0.0&SLON2=0.0&SLON1=0.0&CLAT=0.0&CLON=0.0&CRAD=0&SUBMIT=Submit+Search
So the fact is Sollog hit the EXACT DATE for the only major quake in a whole month, it struck approximately 100 miles from the country he names since Easter Islan is part of Chile and this Easter Quake struck approx. 100 miles from Chile, the quake also just happened to hit the line of latitude that Easter Island is on. In 2000 and 2001 Sollog issued 10 such quake warning, the first five like this gave an exact date when a rare 7.0+ range quake hit.
That's a pretty damn weak argument, it's like predicting an earthquake will happen in the UK and then claiming you're right when one happens in the Falklands F cam 13:54, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
Oh sure, 100 miles is it? Funny, this map shows it to be 544 kilometers from even the remotest border of Chile [17]. That's 340 miles away or a DIRECT MISS in other words. It wasn't close to Chile. It certainly wasn't close to Easter Island. No one died. No one mourned. It was a complete and utter miss. --Cchunder 15:38, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Go back to usenet cardianl chunder, I'm sure wiki doesn't want anything to do with a foul mouth demon like you Tohindia
Note, Cchunder is an Ennis troll who posted this seemingly anti-Sollog post, then vandalized the article. Tohindia is an Ennis sockpuppet. Wyss 13:08, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm not an Ennis troll, my usenet record is evidence of that (search for "Cardinal Chunder"). I haven't vandalized the article, as can be seen from my edit history within this article and elsewhere. If there is a specific issue with something I've written, please cite and I will explain why it was changed the way it was. If you're talking of the most recent change by me, it was simply to clarify that someone called el9 (i.e. not Sollog) claimed Sollog made a warning but didn't cite where Sollog supposedly said it. Thus the the prediction is even more dubious than it was before. --Cchunder 14:42, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Cchunder, for what it's worth, I was just about to post that I now do not think you're an Ennis troll. You have some similarities in writing style but it's not at all a match, plus your edit history at wiki is non-Ennis-like in the extreme. Sorry. Let's discuss these substantive changes to the article before you make them, fair enough? Wyss 14:53, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Any similarities are actually due to parody. Thus I only capitalized GAMES OF DEATH in the post above because that's how Sollog likes to say it. --Cchunder 15:17, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm amazed anyone's even discussing his cold reading. Wyss 11:20, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Prediction sections

Hi, everybody! (Hi, dr. Nick!) I'm just popping in here for a brief visit. To no surprise, there's been a lot of discussing... or rather, dissing and cussing... and our dear friend still seems to think he's stronger than Wikipedia (or maybe this is just his idea of a good time, I don't know.) To more relevant matters: please try to keep in mind that this is not a chatbox; if there's something meaningful to say about the article, please let that take precedence over the latest Sollog joke. (Though there are lots of good ones here. :-) Don't tell me all non-anon edits go undiscussed.

That "examples" section annoys me, for example. :-) Encyclopedias should in general be very wary of giving examples, and preferably describe things in a general matter instead. And going so far as to claim they're "best illustrated" by example borders on spoon feeding.

Most of Sollog's "prophecies" are both utterly non-notable and based on principles described in detail elsewhere (like cold reading and the Texas sharpshooter fallacy -- note that the latter can be excused from giving examples, as they illustrate a general point). It is sufficient to state that critics (or "everyone but Ennis", but that's probably too POV) claim Sollog is faking it, and why, possibly linking to some "prophecies" but not quoting them verbatim. The purpose of this article is not to discredit this (very common) "type" of prophecy by demolishing Sollog's specific drivel.

Also, the 9/11 prophecy section doesn't tie in with Xinoehpoel, which seems suboptimal.

In general, though, keep up the good work. This just proves to the world that we can be encyclopedic about anything. :-) JRM 12:27, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

What JRM said :) Wyss 12:39, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Xinoehpoel section was merged with 911 section and it was considered 'vandalism' if you read history on page. So giving an exact date and location for a 7.0+ quake is a cold reading? Saying on 9/11/1998 three years before 911 struck that a major emergency would hit DC on 911 is a cold reading? He had the date (911) and the location (DC) and the event (major emergency) 100%. Note he didn't say terrorism, he say a major emergency, 911 was the biggest emergency in US history and the USA is run from DC so 911 hit DC exactly as Sollog warned. http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=6tb7rp%24gvr%241%40winter.news.erols.com Tohindia

Note, Tohindia's only contributions have been Sollog-related. Wyss 13:51, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure your "merging" was not in good faith, or it wouldn't have been reverted — that's how much faith I have in everyone else. Yes, saying on 9/11/1998 that a "major emergency" will hit DC, and relating this somehow to the number 911, is a total and utter fluke. Coincidence. Lucky guess. Creative interpretation. Insignificant statistic from a huge pool of "prophecies" of which the majority didn't happen by any stretch of the imagination. If I prophesize today that three years from now, some unspecified "major emergency" will hit DC, and do that often enough with different places, dates, and a license to interpret "major emergency" any way I want, then statistically I will get it right by pure coincidence some time. But why am I explaining this to you? I'm sure you understand the mechanics better than anyone else. You are John P. Ennis, and I claim my five pounds. I will not tell you to get a life, for obviously, this is your life. I'm sorry. I wish I could make it better for you, but you probably wouldn't have it any other way. JRM 13:54, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)
And of course Sollog would have claimed a hit if it had happened on the 9th of november, or 19th of January or the 119 or 191st day of the year (and probably things related to 116 since that's just 911 rotated by pi ) etc etc... And arguably New York was hit a lot harder than DC F cam 14:01, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
Oh, and about that "Church of Jimbology" — don't you heretics know about the Really Reformed Church of Wikipedia? Repent, sinners, or burn in the fires of eternal banishment! JRM 12:33, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

Ennis

I am about to replace every usage of "Ennis" in this article w Sollog, w the exception of the 1st sentance. I think repeatedly refering to this man in a manner he does not prefer is unencyclopedic, and unneccesarilly antagonistic. Thoughts? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] Spade wishes you a merry Christmas! 13:13, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please don't make that change until a consensus as been reached. Ennis' preferences are not related to the development of an accurate article. Wyss 13:18, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I disagree, I'm afraid (and thanks for asking here first!). "Ennis" seems more encyclopedic in style to me. Moreover, I strongly believe that for making decisions about this article, the question of what might or might not antagonise Sollog/Ennis should be completely irrelevant. — Matt Crypto 13:22, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Sollog is known as Sollog to the world, so referring to someone by a name he does not use and considers a slur due to his religious beliefs is a very biased and un-encyclopedia thing to do. It would be like constantly referring to Malcom X by his slave name or Ali as Clay, etc. Other than noting Sollog was born John Ennis there should be no reference to Ennis, Sollog is famous for his prophecies and they all say Sollog. When Sollog appeared in court the fact is the US Magistrate referred to him as GOD, it's in the court record. That was decided upon by the judge as the LEGAL NAME of Sollog for any court proceeding.(Added by Tohindia)
The Sollog followers would be slightly harder to spot if they weren't ALWAYS REQUIRED TO USE CAPS. Seriously, his name is Ennis and that is what should be used. Carrp 13:36, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
(This was contributed by Tohindia who not long ago vandalized the article... and given the content and writing style, clearly a sockpuppet of John P. Ennis) Wyss 13:31, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Regardless of the source, Tohindia's argument is sound. Many famous people call themselves something other than their birth name, and it is unencyclopedic not to respect that. His birth name ought be mentioned, but not more than necessary. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] Spade wishes you a merry Christmas! 13:43, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agreed it should be "Sollog". I also personally dislike the "Son of light, light of god" sentence. If it's a misconception why is it in the encyclopedia? Justcron 15:05, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Note, Justcron's only contribs have been related specifically to the "Son of light, light of god" issue. Moreover, after receiving a welcome message from Francs2000, Justcron replied by saying he/she had been "learning the ropes" on wiki for a month or so and was now "ready to contribute". Wyss 15:14, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is it common to analyze a contributor and post their information in a talk post? Seems a little creepy to me. If you want to discuss the issue thats cool... please dont make it personal for no reason Justcron 15:20, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Justcron, there has been so much vandalism and sockpuppetry relating to this article that I'm wary of any user whose only history is so finely focused on Sollog. Your posts are public, for all to see, and I'm simp;y referring to them to provide as much context as possible. However, I am assuming good faith. Why is the "Son of light, light of god" reference so particularly important to you? Wyss 15:26, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wyss, I hear what you're saying. I knew I was stepping into a snake pit and have tried to respect everyones rules and the consensus. I haven't edited any other articles because the ones I have read haven't struck me as needing any changes. Regarding the SOLLOG acronym reference, it seems a basic idea not to have 'misconceptions' in an article, but of course I will respect the consensus viewpoint. I was simply stating my opinion, not trying to take on the powers that be. I've been following Sollog on usenet and have personally concluded he's a 'false prophet' if that helps provide some insight into what I really think. Personal feelings aside, I'm simply applying journalistic principles to the article. I feel at this point the only etiquette violations I have made is sharing personal information on this talk page, but that wasn't my choice. Justcron 15:32, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, come on. As far as new contributors go, you're a paragon of virtue. There's plenty of WikiLove to go around. Wyss was just a bit on edge, and that's understandable too. Here's your official visitor's pass — no wait, give that back, you don't need one to begin with... Close harmony edit chorus, people. A-one, a-two, a-one two three... JRM 15:50, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

I think this would depend on the context of their activities. More seriously, since Ennis has a long history of multiple online identities and sockpuppetry, it's important to refer to him by his birth name for the purpose of reducing any possibility of confusion. Wyss 13:47, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We've argued this before. It seems simple to me; which name is going to be most recognisable to the reader? That would be Sollog. There is no danger of deceit, since we give his full name clearly. Calling him by his best known name doesn't imply approval at all, any more than the court that wound up calling him 'God' meant to approve his deity status. There is enough to decide here without making a big point about the name. DJ Clayworth 14:44, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reitering a previous edit I added. The article is about 'sollog' so this is the name that should be used in the article (in my opinion). Though making a note of his real(legal) in the introduction should be fine (as it is pure information). myork 16:32, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Now, i'm curious about this. Is he using the name Ennis or not ? All of his sockpuppets claims that he does not, however that James Randi form posted here link is signed as "Sollog aka GOD aka J. Ennis". - JohnyDog 16:34, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

User:Johntex views on use of Ennis/SOLLOG:

  • Agree with User:UTC that Ennis' views should not be the guiding force behind decisions about the article. However, common courtesy suggest that his views not be capriciously ignored either.
  • Agree with Sam that the main factor for naming should be how the person is best known.
  • Therefore, Sollog should be the dominant name used, but not to the exclusion of other names.
  • The article should be titled Sollog (as it is currently)
  • The first paragraph should remain as-is, explaining that Ennis is his birthname
  • Most subsequent references should be replaced by SOLLOG.
  • The fact that he has also used other aliases should also be mentioned, if they can be listed and documented.
  • The "Son of Light, Light of God" reference should be retained because it is such a common view. This name for him is used in the Philadelphia City Paper article that is referenced here. I have seen postings that claim Sollog claimed this explanation himself at one point. Can we point to a reference for this?
  • Suggested second paragraph:

Ennis refers to himself by what he calls the "religious name" of Sollog Immanuel Adonai-Adoni (the first name is sometimes fully capitalized: SOLLOG). "Sollog" is widely thought to stand for "son of light, light of God", although more recently, Sollog has denied this explanation. Sollog explains that the name is derived from "Sol" and "Logos", literally "the word of the sun". [18] He has also gone by other aliases. He prefers not to be called by his birth name, John Ennis, considering it an insult, and claims instead that "GOD" is the legal name of any Temple of 'Hayah (TOH) member in any legal proceeding. [19] Johntex 16:37, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The last sane version of the article was basically fine, IMHO. Don't do a global s/Ennis/Sollog/, rather use the form of the name that's appropriate in context. For example, it's the Sollog persona who issued the prophecies and it's Ennis who got questioned by the Secret Service. Some instances of the name will be open to debate, though. --MarkSweep 17:29, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I will attempt an edit bsed on that principle, though I think most things will be down to Sollog. Sollog was arrested as much as Ennis. DJ Clayworth 18:04, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

South Florida?

The article currently says that Ennis is "thought to reside in South Florida". This fact was added by Cchunder, [20], who has recently been reverted and accused of being a troll. So do we have a reference for the Florida thing? Dbenbenn 14:37, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I was accused of being a troll (by User:tohindia) simply because I tend to greatly annoy a certain person. No prizes for guesssing who. The reason why is that this person doesn't like the fact that I can usually demolish their claimed powers simply by comparing the claim to the evidence (e.g. the Easter Island prediction mentioned elsewhere). Concerning the reference to South Florida, I said it for two reasons. First if you look at the ASI drop box it's in Coral Springs. Secondly, take a look at an Amazon.com reviewer called "adoni_pub" [21] and see where they claim to reside - Key West. Between the two I surmise that he lives in South Florida.
Note that on Ennis's website he's asking people to complain to the Florida Attorney General about Wikipedia. Why the Florida AG when there are 49 other AGs to chose from? It's got to be because it's his home jurisdiction. -- ChrisO 15:43, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The reason is simple, Jim Wales and Wikipedia are both in Florida, Wales lives there and his company is chartered there, so the AGO that has jurisprudence over the actions of Wales and Wikipedia is guess who the Florida AGO. If enough people complain to the AGO in Florida from Toh then the AGO will be forced to confront Wales on this page and the actions of the people harassing Sollog and Toh. knock knock wales it's the FL AGO at your door. 202.63.163.66

I was wrong in my first conclusion about Cchunder, I strongly doubt he's Ennis, but I'm still trying to determine if his agenda is NPoV. Comments, Cchunder...? Wyss 14:57, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wyss, you need a dose of assume good faith. Even if his "agenda" were not NPOV (what sort of an agenda is that, anyway?), being POV is fine on the talk page — as long as Cchunder is discussing with us, he's A-OK even if he were the bastard child of Sollog and Satan. I accuse you of having a POV agenda to make sure criticism of Sollog is presented well, and not necessarily defense of him. Am I wrong? You would not be, in any case. NPOV is the neutral point of view, not no point of view or the neutered point of view. Push that POV! As long as you're civil and don't break the 3RR, it's all good. Every editor here is innocent until proven guilty, not until a declaration of good faith is made. In fact, the worst vandals and edit warriors I've seen will all loudly claim to act in good faith. Doesn't mean anything. JRM 15:20, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)
Agreed on all points JRM and apologies to all. Wyss 15:22, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm sure you were just in a fighting frenzy over slaying all those sockpuppets. Time to wash the blood off, valiant defender. Your efforts have not gone unnoticed, and I dub thee Knight of the Wiki. Now let's all edit in peace, tranquility and a healthy dose of sceptic wariness :-) JRM 15:27, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)
Slaying sockpuppets leads to lint all over the place, I would imagine, instead of blood. He need one of those lint roller brush things.A2Kafir 16:32, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC) (Wiki cult acolyte)

Cardinal Chunder is a troll

Want proof Cardinal Chunder is a usenet troll

http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?hl=en&q=chunder+troll&qt_s=Search+Groups

Anyone else has 128 hits for troll on his name?

(The above was contributed by Myork)

That's pretty feeble if I do say so myself. After 4 years of posting literally thousands of messages to various 'fringe' groups, I have by my own reckoning (i.e. searching for "Cardinal Chunder" and "troll"), 49 hits [22]. Needless to say only a fraction of those are referring to me being the troll. --Cchunder 16:37, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
face it chunder 128 posts mention TROLL with your name, you're a troll

Tohit

Article based on your conclusions

Since the majority opinion is

Sollog is not a real name

  • Sollog is a religious name or alias, actually. Wyss 16:45, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is not Toh religion

  • There is, nominally, a Toh religion. Any membership is disputed, however. Wyss 16:45, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There are no Sollog books

  • Of course there are. Wyss 16:45, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Xin is not Sollog

  • This has not been determined either way. Wyss 16:45, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There are no Sollog prophecies as per Chunder saying 911 Warning is not from Sollog


Then this is all that is factual about Sollog according to your opinions

John Patrick Ennis (born July 14, 1960), is an American numerologist, mystic, psychic, and self-published author, artist, musician, poet, and filmmaker. He is currently thought to reside in South Florida, and previously lived in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

(Posted by Tohindia)


Activities

Ennis uses Adoni Publishing to run websites that sell pornography, pictures of dead bodies, and execution videos [23]. Since the mid 1990s.


Ennis and his critics

Ennis and his followers have singled out a few individuals for personal attacks, including Howard Altman, an investigative reporter and former editor-in-chief of the Philadelphia City Paper, Robert Carroll, founder of the website The Skeptic's Dictionary, Los Angeles Times reporter Kenneth Reich, Washington Post reporter Victoria Shannon, and Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, claiming each of them responsible for what they consider slanderous remarks on Ennis's personality and achievements.

According to Altman, Ennis responded to irreverent articles by sending faxes warning him to handle his mail carefully in case it included explosives. Altman interpreted this as a mailbomb threat. Ennis also reportedly threatened to sue Altman for one trillion dollars in damages, though there is no sign as yet of any such suit being filed. [24] He has made similar threats of huge lawsuits against other critics, such as the owner of the Slashdot website.

Both Altman and Reich contacted the FBI as a result of their harassment.


Legal problems

According to the Philadelphia City Paper (Altman 1996), Sollog has had various legal problems, culminating in his arrest by the United States Secret Service.

Ennis' legal problems, according to Altman, started in 1987, when he admitted selling obscene materials in Maricopa County, Arizona and was put on probation. He reportedly violated his probation by committing an aggravated assault later that year, following which the authorities issued a warrant for his arrest. He left Arizona and moved to Pennsylvania.

On February 5, 1988 he was arrested in Philadelphia following a drunken high-speed vehicle chase which ended with police officer Sam D'Urso being seriously injured. He was charged with two counts of aggravated assault (including one charge of intentionally causing serious bodily injury to a police officer), one count of recklessly endangering another person and one count of driving under the influence. He failed to appear in court when summoned. A second warrant for his arrest was issued, but the authorities failed to follow up on this and it remained unactioned for another seven years.

In September 1995, Ennis was arrested by the United States Secret Service on suspicion of making threats against the President of the United States (according to him, this was related to a prediction that a plane crash would occur if President Bill Clinton flew to Jackson Hole, Wyoming). It was discovered that he had two warrants outstanding against him, and he was committed for trial on the February 1988 vehicle offenses. When the case came to court in May 1996, Ennis's defense invoked conspiracy theories involving the President, the Governor of Pennsylvania and the Mayor of Philadelphia. He dismissed his own defense attorney, calling him "part of the conspiracy", and represented himself from that point on. Judge Anthony DeFino described the case (which the press dubbed the "God Trial") as being "the most unusual case I have ever seen in my courtroom." Ennis was convicted on all four charges and imprisoned.

Ennis claims that the conviction was later overturned on technical and evidentiary grounds, although this claim has not been substantiated.


External links

Category:1960 births Category:Paranormal phenomena Category:Usenet peopleThe above 3 nonsensically duplicated sections from the main article were posted here by Tohindia.


Comment, IMHO, this is Ennis trying to remove as much identifiable information about Sollog from the article as he can, in order to reduce search engine hits on the wiki article when Sollog is searched for. Wyss 16:48, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

why would ennis care about search engines, you say there is no sollog, there is no toh, there are no members, no one buys books, so the article should be the 'real name' you have been asking for, you won wyss, you got your way there is no sollog, or do you believe in sollog now and want to use sollog as the name of ennis

you people make me laugh, you argue for weeks there is no sollog now two toh members say you know what you're right, there is no toh there is not sollog and now you want to revert back from what you wanted, no sollog

THERE IS NO SOLLOG

THERE IS NOT TOH

THERE ARE NO BOOKS

so remove all sollog references and toh references etc

Nice ennis page though

haha

...Yawn... Mr Ennis now seems to be posting as Tohit and Tohindia. Wyss 17:08, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Need for Archiving

Talk:Sollog has gotten very long again. I don't know the proceedure on archiving a page. Can someone here archive it to reduce the length? Archiving is not a perfect solution, however, because it does not help to concentrate the comments on a single issue together. Is there a way to split this into multiple topics (E.g. Ennis/Sollog, Predictions, Legal History, Usenet Activity, Other)? I recognize this would not be a perfect solution either, since it would mean watching (and guarding against vandalism on) more tha one page. Other suggestions? Johntex 17:47, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The procedure for archiving is to cut-and-paste the contents of the talk page into a newly created archive page like the ones linked to from the top of this page. Refactoring the talk page to keep the discussion on topic is a good idea and has been tried in the past. However, since certain special contributors are apparently not very interested in keeping the talk page neat and tidy, it tends to quickly degenerate after refactoring into something resembling the present state. --MarkSweep 18:00, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

9/11 Attribution

Perhaps I've missed something, but the 911/'READ IT AND WEEP MORONS' prediction now continues with "This message is not from Sollog and makes no reference to where or even if he made such remarks". Given the bald statement of fact that it is "not from Sollog", who is it from? How does the person who wrote this know that it is "not from Sollog"? - Ashley Pomeroy 17:52, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ennis has been on a vandalism/posting spree here and there may be a couple of artifacts of that in his new "proposed article" section. Wyss 17:55, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The current revision of the article discusses the so-called 911 prediction as one of two examples of Sollog's prophecies. Right after the quoted newsgroup posting, it says, "This message is not from Sollog and makes no reference to where or even if he made such remarks. However supporters interpret this...". This does not do justice to the real situation. I agree that it would be extremely difficult to ascertain who posted that Usenet message and when. However, Sollog and/or his supporters usually take full credit for it, claiming it is a "DIRECT HIT". So it should be seen as a canonical, Sollog-approved prophecy; any cautionary remarks about its authenticity should come second. --MarkSweep 18:00, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/o/l/Talk%7ESollog_Archive_4_524a.html"