User talk:Sollog/Archive 2

From formulasearchengine
Jump to navigation Jump to search


This page is a refactoring of the existing discussion, centering it around specific issues scattered across the comments on the original talk page.

The goal is to keep the discussion here on topic and as objective and non-contentious as possible. Some things were deliberately left out, typically comments that insult, belittle, taunt, bait, etc. Other comments may have been left out by accident. Please fill those in, unless they duplicate existing material -- no use repeating the same point dozens of times.

There are also a few anonymous comments here that I haven't identified yet. I'd appreciate any help with that. Thank you. --MarkSweep 03:32, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

NB: The version immediately preceding the refactoring is here.


This article was voted on for deletion. It was decided to keep the article. --Rlandmann 05:58, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Because of all the vandalism, personal attacks, and legal threats carried out on this page, I'm refactoring the discussion to contain only suggestions for improving the article in question (which is, after all, the purpose of this talk page). Anyone interested in what has gone before should consult the page history. --Rlandmann 12:21, 10 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. 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.
  3. No name calling, no personal attacks. Portions of comments containing personal attacks will be removed.
  4. No legal threats. Portions of comments containing legal threats will be removed.
  5. Do not maliciously alter other people's comments, blank the page, etc. This is considered vandalism and will be reverted.
  6. 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)

No matter how much people vandalize a page, no matter how ridiculous or invalid you think the topic is, no matter how lowly you think of people—practice what you preach by discussing here. Don't call people sockpuppets. Don't imply that any particular person editing under an IP is Sollog, or another IP, or Archimedes Plutonium for all I care. Don't take the "you are a vandal and I am not" approach by threatening people with tasty blocks and bans because you've seen them vandalize before and know they'll do it again. Do not lower your standards for administering these measures because you feel their behaviour warrants it. Don't ridicule the topic at every turn to make a nice inharmonious editing club of you and other regular Wikipedians.

Now, why am I saying this instead of properly deriding all the vandals? No, it's not because I'm a member of a Wikipedian Moral Majority who are comfortable in remaining as bland as they are unattached to any opinion. It's because these people can be of use in improving the article, even if just to get the far-out POV of Sollog followers straight from the horse's... mouth. (I must remind myself to practice what I preach as well, every now and again—no facile jokes.) This is Wikipedia on the edge. Maybe it'll go over the edge sometimes; we're all only human, after all. (No easy jokes here either...) We have the unique opportunity to give the world an NPOV article on a topic that, to my knowledge, has not had any neutral observers. Let's use it. At the very least, it could give us a better understanding of the social phenomena involved. If you don't care, I still do. Humor me. JRM 00:22, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

You're right. --MarkSweep 01:12, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, since we're keeping the page, anyone have any suggestions for improving it? --Rlandmann 06:05, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please discuss already categorized issues under the appropriate heading. If you want to discuss a new subtopic, please create a new subsection. Thanks. --MarkSweep 03:53, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)


What, according to TOH members, does Sollog mean? Where does it come from? Is it "Sollog" or "SOLLOG", and why? Where did Altman get the expansion "Son of light, light of God" from? Did he make it up himself or was he misreading something? JRM 00:22, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

Article should explain that the name is an acronym... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 18:01, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Does that have anything to do with the sentence "Belief of TOH is that all life is part of God and therefore GOD"? I can't quite parse it, but if GOD stands for something that would help. (Kind of...) —tregoweth 00:44, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

SOLLOG does not mean Son of whatever, these posts are an insult to Sollog and all members of TOH. 09:13, 10 Dec 2004

DO NOT REFER TO SOLLOG AS ENNIS (...) Sollog is Sollog that is his true name. comment made at 14:15, 10 Dec 2004 by "TOH Member S FL", actually

The "Son of Light, Light of God" moniker seems to be a fairly widespread interpretation of his name - so widespread that it probably needs to be commented on, even if to say that Sollog does not claim (or no longer claims) this to be the meaning of the name. --Rlandmann 07:10, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've been trawling backwards through Google Groups, trying to find where the acronym idea may have started. this post makes me think that Ennis may have originally publishing his predictions under this name. The only way to be certain, I guess, would be to consult The City Paper. --Rlandmann 23:46, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The phrase but Sollog supporters deny this, pointing to his own explanation of the name being comprised of "Sol" and "Log" could perhaps be expanded to indicate what "Sol" and "Log" are supposed to mean. His site indicates that "Sol" is a reference to the sun, and it seems to imply that "Log" is derived from the Greek Logos, with an intended reference to math and "divine wisdom". -- Zawersh 20:38, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • I wonder what the logic is to have a meaning of Sollog's name (Son of God...) listed which is disputed by the individual themself. An outside party can't determine what someones name means. Repeating someones guess as to a names meaning doesn't seem relevant to an encylopedia entry. In addition using the word 'pseudonym' while technically accurate, appears to be used as a slur. Perhaps different phrasing can be used similar to Malcolm X's wikipedia entry which simply states "He was born as..." --Justcron 16:19, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


(The article) should also mention that he was convicted of aggravated assault, reckless endangerment and DUI and claimed to be God while defending himself in the courtroom. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 18:01, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sollog is well known for his prophecies, math theories and books, not for a bs court case that was over turned. comment made anonymously at 06:36, 10 Dec 2004 by
I have to say I more or less agree with that. --MarkSweep 01:21, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

He allows his prophecies to be put into Usenet as soon as they are made, that means you don't have to pay him to see what he says about the future. 06:21, 10 Dec 2004

Agreed that his usenet activities should be better described. --Rlandmann 07:10, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The facts are Sollog has many fans and skeptics in usenet and on many web sites, he has many references in the media. His is known mostly for his prophecies, you don't see other seers or psychics allowing their stuff to be put into the public domain via usenet where it is recorded with time stamps to prove they either know details about future events or they don't. He has many many hits and some of the so-called misses are in fact simple allegorical hits. i.e. the 902 prophecy about the pope of satan's death, no where does he say john paul II, but skeptics say he did, fans point out anton lavey aka the pope of satan died that month etc.

You can find references in articles where judges call him the most brilliant man they have ever had in their court room (...). 06:21, 10 Dec 2004

Could you please specify some of these articles? -- Hoary 10:48, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Usenet celebrity of "Sollog" has been mentioned before. Intrigued, I took a look, and it does indeed seem that he has a certain fame. This page tells us that "John P. 'Sollog' Ellis" (that's the term it uses) was Alt.Usenet.Kooks "Kook of the Month" for June 1998 and January 2001, and co-winner (with Edmond Heinz Wollmann) of the "Earl Gordon Curley Memorial Nebudchanezzar". See also Who is a "net.kook"? That's explained here. If Usenet celebrity is something worth noting in the article, this surely is part of it. -- Hoary 10:48, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Oh dear, he was only KoM once, and I mistakenly "corrected" one to two in the main article. Sorry! I blame my limited stamina for reading kookery and even meta-kookery. -- Hoary 05:27, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Status as deity

Does Sollog now or has Sollog ever claimed to be God, or a god? Have his followers? JRM 00:22, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

  • There are serious credibility issues. After more checking I'm reasonably sure most of the pro-Sollog posts on this talk page, if not all of them, have been made by the original author of the article, John Ennis himself (aka Sollog) and that TOH is a religion with a membership of essentially zero. His tactics on wiki match his past behavior towards other web sites. All of this should be considered when pondering the possibility of engaging in a civil dialog with him for the purpose of developing an NPoV wiki article. Wyss 03:44, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    No, it should not. If we started to ponder whether discussion is possible or not, we shouldn't do it. Discuss or do not discuss—there is no try. Now obviously we are not going to take anything these self-proclaimed follower(s) claim, Sollog or no, as the gospel from high above. In fact, I basically want any factual claim they make to be checked, and any statement of opinion to be carefully weighed for inclusion. This article isn't going to turn into a pro-Sollog PR platform if any of us can help it. Furthermore, we can just state that it is widely held (if indeed it is, and I for one will join you on it) that Sollog's basic schtick is astroturfing on a massive scale.
    Are you saying that after multiple acts of vandalism, refusal to even give the appearance of following wiki procedures, vulgarities, rudeness ad yawnium and all the rest, there's no diminished likelyhood of rational discussion? Wyss 14:50, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    Of course there is. All I'm saying is that you don't need to rub our faces in it every time we ask anything about Sollog without adding "and of course this is all hokum" in the byline. I think everyone can be trusted to their own judgement on Sollog when they see a supported claim of him calling himself God. I know I can... JRM 15:40, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)
    When people refer to his "followers", I feel compelled to repeat that the preponderance of evidence indicates he impersonates all of them himself, and has been doing this for years. Wyss 16:29, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • In response to his earlier comment (paraphrased), Scollog's family has never been involved in pornography, I'd like to mention that his website has direct links to pay-for-porn sites, so there appears to be misrepresentation as well. Wyss 03:44, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    This can just be plain oversight. I've seen a serious site by a movie enthusiast have direct links to pay-for-porn sites (and no, it wasn't a porn movie enthusiast). "Involved in" is so vague that you can claim anything. Don't start some poisoning the well arguments by implying a "if they lie about this, they'll lie about anything" line of reasoning. You're not here to convince us Sollog is an out-and-out kook who does his own PR, and you're certainly not going to convince him/them, so what's the point? JRM 13:19, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)
    The point is that all of the domains (,, etc etc) are registered to AIS in Coral Springs Florida. I appreciate that you're trying to keep an open dialog here, the point is that you're likely not going to accomplish it with the author of the article and yes, once a lie is parsed, forget credibility. Wyss 14:44, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    Ah, see? Factual statements, those I like. So then he is involved in pornography, by virtue of owning several domains on which pornographic material is displayed. Voilà.
    and yes, once a lie is parsed, forget credibility. Even liars occasionally say true things, if only by accident, or because it suits them. Does lying make you less credible? Of course; it certainly means we cannot put in any claim without corroborating it with facts, or we'd do our readers a disservice. But what else is new? I wouldn't trust, say, George W. Bush on many things he says about himself, and I think we all agree that Bush is quite a bit more reliable than Sollog in this respect.
    You may find my motives easier to understand when you realize I'm basically not hoping for anything here, not even a thorough discrediting of Sollog, who I think does the discrediting quite well by himself. Anything indisputable we can salvage from the discussion is already a major victory in my book. JRM 15:40, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)
    It isn't plain oversight. The AIS "empire" includes sites that sell pornography, execution videos and pictures of dead bodies. For one particularly nasty example see here [1]. Considering offers the same for free, it is a wonder that anyone into that stuff would pay for it. All the AIS sites link incestuously to one another, use the same boiler plate layout and and are clearly produced by the same hand. This isn't the case where you cut and pasted a bit of advertising JS into your site and are now serving up porn / casino ads - it's deliberate and hardcoded. --Cchunder 10:49, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Finally, Sollog claims to be God [sic]. In my experience, the implications of an assertion like that diminish the chances of establishing a rational online exchange with him to about nil. Ultimately (in either his own name or as an anon sockpuppet "member of TOH") he's likely to keep insisting on a page written exclusively to his PoV or threaten anything he can think of to have it deleted altogether. Wyss 03:44, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    In which case we will politely but insistently refuse to indulge him. I was sort of hoping for a reference to the "claims (has claimed?) to be God" claim. And I mean one that's a little less biased than the Altman article (he had a good laugh, of course, but the tone of his piece makes clear this is not intended to be an objective news article). Has he claimed divinity in the court case, for example? Do others confirm that? Is he still running around introducing himself as God or is he singing a new tune? JRM 13:19, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)
    A cursory Google search (Sollog Ennis) shows this is true. He claims "various courts around the world" recognize God or Almighty God as the only lawful alternatives to the name Sollog. This remark has cropped up when people refer to him as John Ennis. He has also vandalized this page with the statement SOLLOG IS GOD. Wyss 14:18, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    Following a few of those links [2], it appears none other than our very own Sollog was responsible for the big "Nostradamus predicted 9/11" urban legend, which has gained some notoriety. (I knew he'd claimed to prophesy 9/11 himself, but this connection wasn't clear to me).
    Not really... almost all the Nostradamus types were on 9/11 within a day or two. I don't see any evidence Sollog was the catalyst for that nonsense, looks to me like he merely jumped on it with the others. Wyss 15:59, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    Well, he didn't originate it. See Snopes for the full genealogy; ironically, it was first offered as an original example of a hoaxed quatrain. But the site I mentioned specifically connects the poster (Xinoehpoel) with Sollog, and this mass-posted "quatrain". Whether he had any significance in the spreading is another question, but it appears that at least for alt.prophecies.nostradamus, he did. This sort of thing is notoriously hard to pin down for sure, of course, but it at least warrants a mention, if only in the context of discrediting this "prophecy". JRM 16:41, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)
    Sorta like the Sanford Wallace of discredited psychics, then... Wyss 16:51, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    I'll try and condense all the factually verifiable material we have on Sollog from this talk and the VfD nomination later; it's basically all a big mess now, and the smoke and mirrors from the Sollog camp aren't helping.
    It seems that 15 minutes of fame really are achievable by just making enough waves on the Internet. I might have to rethink my career. :-) JRM 15:40, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

According to, "In the late 1960s, one of the most prominent pieces of graffiti seen in London and New York was 'Clapton is God'." I'm not sure I remember seeing this, but I have seen such statements. Surely they were not intended to imply that Eric Clapton created the universe, etc., etc.; merely that he was a "god" among guitarists. Are the statements of Ennis or the Sollogites that "Sollog is god" of a similar nature, praising his (alleged) predictive powers? -- Hoary 05:39, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Status as book author

You need a complete bibliography of his 30+ books under his three pen names. 06:21, 10 Dec 2004

Could you please supply publication details on his 30+ books? As far as anyone here is able to tell, these are just vanity publications available in electronic format. Have any of them been in print? If so, who published them and when? --Rlandmann 07:10, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Adoni Publishing distributes all Sollog material via their network of over 300 developed content sites. Haven't you heard you live in a new digital age? Adoni Publishing is one of the largest new media publishers in the world, they get millions of viewers each month across their large network of web sites. They publish full color facsimiles of rare ancient works such as Nostradamus and Shakespeare and have over 5000 titles in their catalog. They have several films and Music CD's as well.
Get some old copies of City Paper and you will see a dozen or so bookstores listed that carried the original sollog books in print. Any bookstore can order you an eBook CD of the Sollog titles, some are in print and most are in POD. — Anonymous comment by, at 02:29, 10 Dec 2004. The comment ended by saying that "wiki will be sued to remove all reference to Sollog", remarkable in view of the fact that it was (contributions) who/that started the article in the first place. (Moreover, starting the article was's first ever contribution to Wikipedia.)
We're told that Adoni Publishing distributes all Sollog material via their network of over 300 developed content sites.... Recall that Adoni is another moniker of Ennis, so this means that Ennis is publishing Ennis, so it's self-publishing. -- Hoary 07:46, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Does this mean that "Sollog" has pen-names? A pen-name of a pen-name seems absurd -- why not rename the article Ennis and list the pen-names there? In the meantime, lists a total of, count 'em, 0 (no) books by "Sollog" or "Sol Adoni", which appear to be Ennis's fave names when he's in a writing mood. What are the criteria for "book" here? -- Hoary 06:37, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
What are the criteria for "book" here? Let's say, for simplicity, anything that has a verifiable ISBN. --MarkSweep 08:00, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Not it's not. ISBN means nothing, it's an artificial number system and since Sollog's words are HOLY you don't number them. comment added at 14:13, 10 Dec 2004 by, a T-Mobile customer whose contributions are listed here
Although some consider his works holy, others do not. Many more people consider the bible holy, and all variations in print have an ISBN

ISBN is indeed an artificial number system. Does ISBN mean nothing? Many people would be persuaded otherwise by, by such shorter explanations as ISBN, or indeed by the ease with which ISBN numbers are used to buy particular editions of particular [real-world] books. Note that ISBN is not, and will not be, limited to "dead-trees" publications: in the transition to longer ISBNs, "There will be no proposed change to the basic guidelines for application of ISBN to digital files ... Format/means of delivery are irrelevant in deciding whether a product requires an ISBN (if the content itself meets the requirement, it gets an ISBN, no matter what the format of the delivery system)" (from an page).

...I must add that anyone can buy their own little range of ISBN numbers for a couple hundred euros. An ISBN number alone doesn't mean much... content, distribution, peer review and reference, along with the backgrounds of the author and publisher can all combine to establish some sense of notability. Wyss 15:15, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'll take "you" in the comment above by in the indefinite sense ("people"). First, if the words of "Sollog" are "holy", this would seemingly imply some divinity of the author; perhaps a sollogite could explain this more fully in Status as deity (above), where precisely this question has been raised. Secondly, the publishers of other works claimed as holy (e.g. the Qur'an) obtain ISBN numbers for them; why would this not apply to the works of "Sollog"? -- Hoary 04:48, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Status as film maker

Sollog is involved in several movies, so he needs a filmography as well 06:21, 10 Dec 2004

Who distributed the films? --Rlandmann 07:10, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You can either download Adoni Films (three are related to Sollog) or you can order them on DVD or eMovie CD. anonymous comment
It's a shame God couldn't use a spell checker: "SEE THE FIRST Full Screen Full Lenght eMovie - Must See" comment posted anonymously at 22:40, 14 Dec 2004 by (making a minor correction to a comment the same IP number had made minutes earlier)

Status as musician

Sollog has several CD's so he needs a Music list as well 06:21, 10 Dec 2004

Who distributed the CDs? --Rlandmann 07:10, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Status as mathematician

Sollog has about 9 or so major math theories, so they need to be listed. 06:21, 10 Dec 2004

Wikipedia has a policy of not publishing original research. Have any of Sollog's math theories been published in a peer-reviewed publication? If so, please supply citations. --Rlandmann 07:10, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sollog is a brilliant mathematician and his finding of hidden 24 number deep number sequences within primes and fibonacci prove that. He did ratio align the inner planets in his PDF formula, he united the mythos of major religions in his creator formula. 06:21, 10 Dec 2004

Uh-huh. Does any mathematician back that up? -- Hoary 06:37, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As for maths, without credible evidence of any significant mathematical breakthroughs by Ennis, I suggest changing "mathematician" to "self-described mathematician". -- Hoary 07:46, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think numerologist is more accurate. Wyss 15:20, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I can't believe I read this, but here we go: on his site, Ennis claims to have discovered a so-called[3] "Prime Field Formula", which states a necessary condition for a number being prime. It states that

Every prime number above 7 is located within the limited field of whole integers expressed as 90(x) + n where x is a whole integer > 0 and n is equal to one of the following numbers: 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 49, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71, 73, 77, 79, 83, 89, 91, 97

Quibbles about "whole integers" aside, what this "discovery" boils down to is the fact that if p is prime, then (p mod 90) is a number strictly between 0 and 90 which is coprime to 90 (he takes care of 1 and 7 by including 91 and 97 in his list; note that the composite numbers 49 and 77 are also included, since they are coprime to 90). This "discovery" does not qualify as a notable mathematical result.

He further intends to state sufficient conditions for primality. There are nine rules altogether, the first eight of which are jointly insufficient to guarantee primality; he then adds a ninth rule which states that a number n is prime if it has no prime factors less than (the case where n is the square of a prime number had already been excluded). In other words, this is an overly complicated version of an ancient naive primality test, not a novel result. --MarkSweep 00:38, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What he describes is akin to saying a prime number is always odd but never ends in five (this, for example, is true, but it also describes some non-prime numbers). I don't see any description of a pattern unique to primes, only an assertion that they fall into one that includes non-primes. Wyss 00:29, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Like Gaul, his discussion is divided into three parts. In the first part he states necessary conditions for primality, i.e., properties that all prime numbers must satisfy. These conditions can only be used to show that a number is composite. In the second part (rules 1 through 8) he attempts to state sufficient conditions for primality. He rules out numbers that are divisible by 2, 3, and 5, as well as some other special cases. Then in the third part (rule 9) he actually manages to state something that can be interpreted as a necessary and sufficient condition for primality. However, that turns out to be a well-known naive primality test. In other words, nothing to see here, move along. --MarkSweep 00:54, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the periodic 24-number sequence in the Fibonacci numbers that Ennis claims to have discovered, this could very well be an old problem. A cursory search reveals that the problem was defined formally in the American Mathematical Monthly (volume 109, November 2002) by Syrous Marivani as the problem of characterizing the digital roots of the Fibonacci numbers. The sequence of digital roots is A030132 in the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences. A solution to Marivani's problem was obtained by Roberto Tauraso and published recently in the American Mathematical Monthly (volume 111, number 7, 2004); it is also available from Tauraso's homepage as a PDF file. Even if Ennis did discover this periodic sequence independently, it is hardly notable without a discussion or proof such as Tauraso's. --MarkSweep 03:07, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Following contributed by anon user The FACT is Sollog discovered the Base Nine sequences in Primes, Fibonacci, Exponents, etc way back in 1995. Seven years later someone takes credit for the Fibonacci sequence that Sollog found that matches his prime sequence means the 2002 'discovery' was post 1995 Sollog discovery. It's well documented Sollog found the 24 number sequence in primes that matches the Fibonacci sequence, he found it in Mersennes as well.

Your case of being a mathematician could be made if you had published these "discoveries" in a mathematical journal. However, your observations about prime numbers, to the extent that they are true, have been known for centuries. Some of your other observations about patterns in prime numbers are patently false. I also don't see the link between the prime numbers and the Fibonacci sequence that you talk about. The observation that the sequence of digital roots of the Fibonacci numbers appears to be periodic is not a major insight (a neat puzzle, sure), and it's even conceivable that this observation itself is quite old, as the Fibonacci numbers too have been (undeservedly?) studied for centuries. You merely demonstrated that the first few digital roots of the Fibonacci numbers appear to be periodic. However, you presented no further discussion or proof that this holds for all Fibonacci numbers, i.e. infinitely many. Tauraso's 2-page paper, on the other hand, contains all of that and more. --MarkSweep 18:37, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Status as artist

Links to his abstract symbolism art 06:21, 10 Dec 2004

Has this art been published or exhibited? --Rlandmann 07:10, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Here is a working link to some of his drawings, Wyss 15:38, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wyss, you just made my day with that link. I trust everyone can see why. JRM 15:41, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)
Beautiful, Wyss, just beautiful. Your research that is, not the drawings. --MarkSweep 22:20, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Have a look at this discussion regarding his talents and how it quickly degenerates. Look familiar? [4] --Cchunder 10:49, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Degenerates? You seriously think anyone on this planet except Ennis would call that art? -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 20:05, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
What's sad is that he's attacking Jimbo for being a pornographer. Oh, the irony...

Status as netizen

Alexa tracks over 50 Million web sites, you have to be top 10% in traffic to even get a ranking there. Adoni has put dozens of sites into the top 100K at Alexa, something no other publishing company has done. Any site with a 500K or so ranking at Alexa is in the top 1% of the net for traffic. — Anonymous comment by, at 02:29, 10 Dec 2004. The comment ended by saying that "wiki will be sued to remove all reference to Sollog", remarkable in view of the fact that it was (contributions) who/that started the article in the first place. (Moreover, starting the article was's first ever contribution to Wikipedia.)

1. Alexa ratings. Alexa Top Sites suggests that it's a list that you have to buy; thanks, but I'm not eager to pay for it. The list of the top 500 doesn't, as far as I can see, have a menu option "What this actually means". Does it tot up accesses by "Alexa Toolbar"? "The toolbar is only compatible with Internet Explorer on Microsoft Windows", says Alexa Toolbar: this implies that Alexa's numbers are of visits by people who still use 'Doze, who still haven't switched to Firefox or whatever, and who install something widely regarded as spyware -- admittedly a large group, but one that would be expected to overrepresent the docile and to underrepresent the skeptical. (See also this comment on bizarre rankings by Alexa.)

2. Instead of talking vaguely of "dozens", can anyone name a small number of websites ("Adoni" or otherwise) that are particularly popular? -- Hoary 02:08, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A netizen appears to be anyone who utilizes the Internet as a means of discourse. By Wiki's listing, Sollog is a netizen. You are a netizen. We are all netizens. Therefore, I suggest that Sollog *not* be called a "netizen", because the article already mentions the following statement, which already appears to account for his status: "...Sollog has been very prolific, publishing his beliefs and predictions on the web and Usenet."
I believe the grandparent was implying that Sollog was more than a mere netizen, but instead a "net celebrity" of some sort. As Alexa's FAQ suggests, the population that uses its toolbar is not representative of the entire internet. Furthermore, Alexa's ranking system does not determine how popular an individual may or may not be. As such, I think there is a significant lack of information regarding Sollog's status in the minds of most internet users, and as such should not be mentioned. Cookie3 02:29, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep in mind, this is the talk page, not the article. I think the idea was to avoid the use of the term celebrity, since Sollog's following is disputed, and celebrity by spam seems like a dubious thing. Wyss 02:58, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I'm familiar with how Wiki operates. I'm just trying to provide info that shows Sollog and/or his followers have yet to generate any credibility with the original poster's argument. My reply suggested that the recognition of netizen is frivolous, and that the ranking system that was suggested did not matter with regards to his status anyway. If Sollog and/or his followers can provide an intellectual argument explaining how Sollog's status is more significant than simply a prolific Usenet poster and webmaster, then I'd listen to it. As I said above, though, Alexa is not an analysis of an individual, and is unsuitable to be used in such matters. Cookie3 03:39, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


A few links to the most famous prophecies would be a good idea 06:21, 10 Dec 2004

Wikipedia is not a link farm. However, I agree that some of the major prophecies should be detailed. What are Sollog's three most accurate prophecies? --Rlandmann 07:10, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Media coverage

A few links to the major media references of him would be a good idea (city paper is not major media) such as the WP, der spiegel, register in uk and few others 06:21, 10 Dec 2004

Agreed that we could perhaps include a couple more links. Der Spiegel's material seems especially relevant. --Rlandmann 07:10, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
There's a problem, though: The article series from Der Spiegel is not freely available, one has to purchase it on the Spiegel website or hope that it's in a library. --MarkSweep 03:18, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The two City Paper links should be removed as they contain inaccurate information about Sollog. The links say Sollog was involved in illegal pornography which I believe is untrue and cannot even be verified. Therefore, if no one here can verify that the allegation is true, then I request the links are removed. I have tried already but have been told to discuss it here.

Another reason for removing the links are that there are only two pro-Sollog links and four anti-Sollog links in the article. Removing the two City Paper links will make that part of the article neutral.A2X 06:48, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is no "tit for tat" rule that the number of links must be balanced exactly, even if you assume there are only two sides to the issue. If there are legitimate pro-Sollog links you feel should be included, we would be happy to consider them for the article.
We have no way of knowing if the links in question are accurate or not, just as we have no way of knowing if any link is accurate. We must judge the best we can based on context, the reliability of the source, etc. Frankly, we have to assume that a newspaper in a major American city is accurate, and in the vast majority of cases they are. In this case, with no evidence to the contrary, we must assume that they are accurate. Newspapers make mistakes all the time, but we cannot simply take the word of some random internet users that they are wrong in this case. Provide some evidence and prove your case. Gamaliel 07:15, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
What you are asking me to do is impossible. You are asking me to prove a negative. It is impossible to prove that someone is not an illegal pornographer. You are using the same tactics that Bush used to start a war against Iraq. He wanted Iraq to prove there were no WMDs to avoid a war, something that was impossible to do. I recommend you stop asking me to prove a negative. Frankly, I expected better than a recycling of G.W. Bush's ideals from an administrator. No one here here has been able to prove that Sollog is an illegal pornographer and if you can't do that then the City Paper links should go.
I am also disappointed to see that other City Paper links have been added that make similar allegations against Sollog, and that the admins here have not seen fit to remove them. As soon as the links are removed by me or someone else, they are put back up again even though no one has proved the allegations aginst Sollog are correct. A local FREE sex rag with adverts for homosexual liaisons is not an acceptable source, in my view.
I request the admins remove the City Paper links or allow me or someone else to remove the links and that they do not allow anyone else to put the links back up again until someone proves the allegations contained in those limks are correct.A2X 17:30, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well, A2X, I'm not sure you have much credibility on whether the claims made in those City Paper articles are true or not, because you were not even accurate on what claims were made. I've read all linked City Paper articles and not one of them accuses Sollog of being an illegal pornographer. Of being in the business of pornography in the past and possibly present, yes, but despite your repetition of "illegal pornography" and "illegal pornography", there is nothing inherently illegal about pornography (not in Sollog's country) and no one has suggested that the porn Sollog is alleged to have been involved with was the illegal kind. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:06, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Also note that linking to the City Paper articles does not constitute an endorsement of any views expressed in those articles. A2X seems to believe that those in favor and those opposed to including the City Paper links are obliged to prove or disprove the factual accuracy of those reports. Not so. The City Paper links are here because they point to published articles in a paper from a major city written by a professional journalist. The issue of what views are expressed in those articles is irrelevant; what's at stake here is verifiability. If there are other published articles written by professional journalists that are more favorable to Ennis, I'd probably be in favor of linking to those as well. --MarkSweep 19:10, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
To elaborate further, there is no "tit for tat" rule for good reasons, because presenting a contentious issue by introducing an artificial balance between supporters and oponents of that issue may in fact paint an inaccurate picture of the real situation. If in fact the majority of people is on one side of an issue and a vocal minority is on the other side, a report that treats both sides as equal could arguably be characterized as biased. For a discussion how this has affected science journalism, read the article Blinded By Science – How ‘Balanced’ Coverage Lets the Scientific Fringe Hijack Reality in the Columbia Journalism Review. --MarkSweep 07:57, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Connection to Leo Phoenix

A couple of links explaining his connection to Leo Phoenix 06:21, 10 Dec 2004

Why? --Rlandmann 07:10, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Leo Phoenix = anagram of Xinophoel (or vice versa) = see above. -WCityMike 22:27, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Religious movement (and tax exemption), meaning of "TOH" and "'Hayah", TOH Toy Drive

Links to info about TOH the religious movement he started 06:21, 10 Dec 2004

Agreed - if there is any information on this movement available that has been written by third parties and not by Sollog or his close associates. --Rlandmann 07:10, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've tried to get some information from the website, but found it rather hard to navigate. What is "'Hayah" (is the apostrophe right)? JRM 00:22, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC) posted a link to a TOH activity here. --Carnildo 09:59, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See it's one of the many charitable things Sollog does through TOH you should have it on his main page .... Post a link to the TOH Toy drive and don't remove it, is a legit thing to discuss Posted anonymously at 10:06, 10 Dec 2004 by (Slightly less than two hours earlier -- 08:11 -- the same IP number had been used to demand "Remove all Sollog Pages".)

Now that you're not advocating a particular course of activity with respect to that site, maybe the link can stay. This isn't an advertising venue. --Carnildo 10:08, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
OK, it "is a legit thing to discuss", so let's kick off a discussion. I took a look at What it says is that "Each year TOH distributes Winter Solstice Toys to Children". There's no hint of what these toys are, where the children are, how they're distributed, etc. There's no solicitation of toys. Instead, Ennis wants your money (via PayPal, to (Incidentally, I'm surprised that such a major concern as Ennis's hasn't yet set up its own secure server for payments, but then of course "God" moves in mysterious ways.) In return for your donation of money, Ennis will send you such amazing things as "a 15 Minute phone reading by Sollog" (that's for 250 unspecified units, revealed in the hidden source [!] as US dollars). Mmm, are these donations tax deductible as charitable? If so, I wonder why the deductibility isn't mentioned; and if not, I wonder why not. Looks pretty feeble. Not notable. Oh, OK, notably unconvincing. -- Hoary 12:48, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You show your ignorance about taxes, like native indians and the amish TOH members are Tax Exempt. By Biblical Law. TOH only follows Books of Moses. Anyway, TOH is a tax exempt religion. So the whole tax garbage does not pretain to TOH and members of TOH. So keep paying your 'voluntary' taxes in the USA. 14:27, 10 Dec 2004
The "tax garbage" I was referring to was the ability of people to claim charitable contributions as deductions from their taxable income. So anyway, what are the toys, where are the kids, what percentage of money sent to Mr Ennis goes to the toys for the kids? Can you present any other evidence that this is a real charity that does a significant amount of good in the world? Incidentally, while whether "TOH" members (their incomes?) are tax exempt according to their own interpretation of something in the Bible is of some trivia interest, I think readers of the article would be more interested to see how the IRS of the USA views this publishing empire. -- Hoary 14:51, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Hayah" returns no hits at the IRS seach page for tax-deductible charities. --Rlandmann 00:37, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

POV issues

Personally, I think the locked wiki article about him is still too PoV. Aside from the fortune-telling scam, about all that's left is a link to a freep article about this person's allegedly dodgy past, some commercial websites and lots of USENET spam. Since he and his fans appear to be one and the same, in my opinion the subject of this article is really nothing more than a bandwidth hog: Hardly notable. Ironically, I'd still vote to delete (and protect the article title from future vandalism). Wyss 13:07, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am a member of TOH i.e. TEMPLE OF HAYAH

I find the links to City Paper offensive to me and any TOH member due to false information in the articles meant to defame Sollog and TOH members.

I find the way several Wikipedia mods/members have been harassng and defaming Sollog and all TOH members.

Since Wikipedia has proven they are not a neutral resource TOH MEMBERS demand all Sollog pages be removed ASAP.

TOH MEMBER S. Florida talk contribs 09:02, 10 Dec 2004

Agreed, you guys need to get rid of that BS Altman article. He's a moron putting out disinfo about Sollog. Be fair and get rid of the biased material. Aries31 02:54, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Note: the only contributions of Aries31 have been related to "Sollog"; see his contributions page. -- Hoary 12:56, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That would not be in the spirit of the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. We will, of course, have everything scrutinized that Altman claims, but bias is not in itself a reason for excluding material. We can always neutralize it by stating "Altman claims that so-and-so... Others counter that so-and-so..." or (preferably) refactoring everything into one more neutral statement. After all, if "biased material" were outright disallowed, most of the information coming from the Sollog website and people who openly claim to be his followers couldn't be put in either. There'd be no article left. JRM 03:15, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)
If you would like this page to be removed, you should register as a wiki user and nominate the page for deletion. You can count on me for a Delete vote. Wyss 14:40, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Unlikely to happen. It was just voted on, and the consensus was to keep. I'd probably vote to keep again. --MarkSweep 17:12, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, I know... I was just trying to point out that as usual, Ennis seems to have issues following wiki procedure. Wyss 20:46, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Can I unprotect this article? We need more info than this on Sollog, so someone ought to have a chance to expand it. I figure a Sollog follower could do a lot of expanding, and then if it's not quite neutral, one of us impartial observers could do some NPOV tidying. As for vandalism, I've got it on my watchlist, so I'll rollback any that I see. Everyking 04:29, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I read Wikipedia:Protection policy and would argue that we have overwhelming evidence for the article being a target of persistent vandalism. I've stated my position in favor of continued protection before, and I've seen nothing that would have made me change my mind. This said, I'm also inclined to say go ahead and unprotect it if you want, since you seem to be prepared to deal with vandalism. --MarkSweep 06:37, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm absolutely certain one or more "Sollog follower" could and indeed would do a huge amount of expanding, and would also remove anything that he deemed insufficiently reverent of "Sollog" (about whom we've repeatedly read "Sollog is God", often in FULL CAPS). I'm also certain that such changes would be untrammeled by attempts on this discussion page by, er, infidels [yes, a word that has been used!] at a rational discussion: "What do you mean by X? "What specific examples can you give of Y?" etc. This discussion page allows acolytes and infidels alike the opportunity to present arguments, pose questions, and suggest revisions. Let those who want to do so take up these opportunities. When there's something like an agreement on a proposed change, an administrator can act on it (and rapidly reprotect). Or anyway I suppose that this would be possible, but I'm no expert in procedural matters. -- Hoary 07:14, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well, it just seems wrong to leave it protected indefinitely. That's not the Wiki way. If we were going to do that, it should've just been deleted. Maybe we could wait a while and then unprotect once things quiet down, then? Everyking 07:16, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I found it amusing when he used the word "infidel" against me, since it is part of my screen name. Less amusing are his occasional anti-Semitic comment (referring to the reporter at City Paper as "that Jew..."). A2Kafir 19:55, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
By "he", who are you referring to? I hope it's not User:Hoary, because that would mean you've come to entirely the wrong page, and are probably look for his talk page. JRM 20:10, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)
Sorry, by "he" I meant Sollog or one of his putative followers, not Hoary. A2Kafir 20:15, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
My bad. I couldn't place your comment at all because I hadn't seen Sollog call you "infidel" (this and the VfD nomination have generated so much prose that its very hard to trawl through), but I have no doubt that Sollog has called many people many things. My sincere apologies for not assuming good faith. I take this as a sign that I haven't edited enough articles today, and should get to work. :-) JRM 20:23, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)
Going by past behavior (a record of which is available through a Google search for Sollog Ennis), it's reasonable to assume the page will likely be vandalized indefinitely by its original author. I do agree that the alternative to indefinite protection is deletion. Wyss 07:32, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have to agree with Mark and Hoary here; we're likely to going to waste a lot of time reverting vandalism, and this will both hamper discussion and drown out the good edits. I also have to agree with Everyking and Wyss, however: indefinite protection isn't really an option. Let's look at it this way: if there are really only one or two IPs we suspect as likely candidates for vandalism, it'll be easy enough to revert.
Note to everyone: keep in mind the three revert rule: if you revert any article more than three times in 24 hours, you are subject to being blocked. I don't expect any of us to get blocked for just reverting the vandalism, but still keep it in mind—reverting is not a productive tactic for discussion, and at this point nobody cares if our article on Sollog does not look factual and neutral 24-7. I'm not advocating tolerance for vandalism, but think about this before getting in a revert war. And try to salvage from edits what you can, of course.
Could we perhaps unprotect briefly as a trial run, and protect it very soon after vandalism happens, without the customary delay periods? This will obviate the need for mass-reverting. JRM 13:31, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)
I'm about to go to bed, while you Americans -- um, Americans of all (both?) shades of opinions on "Sollog" -- are waking up. So if you unprotect very soon, the ensuing fun and games will be without me. So I'll say no more, other than to point out that there are numerous IP numbers that have been used (some of which appear to have been used earlier by different personalities, and thus are likely to be DHCP, internet cafes or similar), as well as a number of purpose-made IDs. I think you're going to have your work cut out. Good luck! -- Hoary 14:47, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. Don't worry. I love the smell of vandalism in the morning. JRM 15:14, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)
The evidence suggests that you were right to advocate unprotection, I was wrong to oppose it. The article is a lot better now. I'm sorry to hear that Jimbo Wales has been getting junk phone calls; but that matter aside things seem to be going well. The quiet before the storm? (Pardon the cliché, but I haven't yet had my first coffee of the day so my brain can't manage anything better.) Hoary 01:14, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oh, I don't doubt it. Since the aforementioned calls, we have seen no edits from pro-Sollog people—unless you count me, as I seem to be the mildest judge on Sollog, but that's all relative, believe me. :-) Once Sollog is bored with whatever he's doing now, he might just remember his good friends at Wikipedia and offer to expand their knowledge with some accurate, neutral, verifiable statements on himself. Or take off on a vandalism spree, I'm not quite sure what option he'll take. Oh, and good morning; you'll be interested to know it's just about time for bed over here. :-) JRM 01:21, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

NDC777's posts about Sollog were deleted

Wikipedia, or as I call them, THICKYPEDIA, have been deleting all posts about Sollog made by his fans. However those who are posting FALSE AND SLANDEROUS INFORMATION are being allowed to post.

What is Thickypedia's problem?

[legal threat removed] posted at 14:09, 11 Dec 2004 by NDC777, whose only contributions have been "Sollog"-related

Please see points 3 and 4 at the top of this page:

3. No name calling, no personal attacks. Portions of comments containing personal attacks will be removed.

4. No legal threats. Portions of comments containing legal threats will be removed.

In short, people are allowed to post information even if you consider it false and slanderous to Sollog. Posting insults and personal attacks on people here and threatening Wikipedia with legal action is not. I like "Thickypedia", by the way. Don't know if anyone else has come up with it yet. JRM 14:19, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

Well, NDC777, if you said anything substantive about Mr Ennis that was deleted, please repost it. Please also reread the instructions at the top of this page, which say that comments should be signed. It's is very easy; you do it like this: ~~~~ Incidentally, I've taken the liberty of rewriting your subheading so that it will be easier to understand when viewed in the list of contents. -- Hoary 14:30, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thicky! I like it : ) Wyss 14:54, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As do I. We could transwiki all the articles about pancakes, omelets, oversized hardback books, and woolley blankets to it. Inky 02:37, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sollog Rants About Wiki On His News Site

Wow! See [] for the latest news on the shocking connection! Wyss 15:29, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For a direct link: [5]. Relevant quote (under fair use): "What most people don’t know is that Bomis is a sex search engine and Wale’s has admitted the selling of sex images is what finances Wikipedia the ‘new encyclopedia’." Perhaps it is worth adding this to the press coverage section... of BJAODN, that is. JRM 15:47, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)
Update: do read our article on Bomis, however. It's all true, of course. Sort of. JRM 15:50, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)
Porn drives much of the Internet (and most of it's legal). The only issue is Ennis' denial of his own background and current efforts in that area. Wyss 16:08, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes, but what really got to me was the "the selling of sex images is what finances Wikipedia". This on an encyclopedia where one of the biggest discussions lately was whether we should censor possibly offensive images. Like Wikipedia is some sort of seedy back-alley business operating from a brothel. And, hey, we all have to pay the bills. Even God, it seems. JRM 16:29, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)
I'm shocked... shocked, to hear you say Ennis might be distorting the facts. : ) Wyss 16:33, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Now now, that's a little bold. I said no such thing. It might be possible, however, that he has slightly misinterpreted them and is additionally presenting them out of context—I'm sure it's all an honest oversight. Why, we all make mistakes. JRM 16:46, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)
One notable remark on the side, however: he is providing sources for his claims. I think that counts for something, even if his conclusions are, of course, ehm... atypical. Man, this neutral writing is hard...JRM 16:49, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

Sollog Denies He's a Sockpuppet on his 24/7 News Site

On 11 Dec 2004 D.E. Alexander (a documented alias of John Ennis aka Sollog), wrote:

If you look at the edit history of the Wikipedia Sollog pages, you will see dozens of Sollog fans complaining about how Wikipedia is editing the Sollog pages. These ‘pro’ Sollog edits are immediately purged and then the poster is called Sollog or a Sollog sockpuppet (a bogus poster who is the same person).

I sat in an office of AIS and saw three different people on one high speed connection post about Sollog. They were all called the same person and Sollog. Then I went to local Starbucks and saw another person post to Wikipedia pro Sollog statements and they too were called Sollog. All of the posts were of course edited out later by the clowns running Wikipedia.

Here, D.E. Alexander claims he happened to witness "member of Toh" postings made from two different locations. An alternate explanation is that Ennis made a number of "member of TOH" postings himself from his home or office, realized the IP number was being noticed and went to a nearby Starbucks to make a few more from a different IP.

The following are references to Ennis' sockpuppet postings on other websites (one refers to him as a sockpuppet army):

A Google search for Sollog sockpuppet reveals other examples, his behavior on Wiki is part of a long-established pattern. Wyss 19:21, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re: Then I went to local Starbucks and saw another person post to Wikipedia — That's where the posts from the T-Mobile IP came from, I strongly suspect. --MarkSweep 19:33, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As I see it, there are two main competing POVs:

  1. The man who calls himself "Sollog" is extremely prolific and proficient at distributing material under identities purportedly belonging to members of a religious group he has established; or
  2. Said religious group has a large number of members who share the same beliefs, opinions, preferences for grammar and syntax, visit the same venues, and are all convinced that everything Sollog says is true and worthy of mention, despite manifest evidence to the contrary.

There are lots of references for people who adhere to the first POV, while I consider it not impossible that the last POV has only one adherent. I also think the selective phrase "almost universally regarded as a crank", with which the distinguished Archimedes Plutonium is honored, would (if added to the article) only be contested by said adherent. But all this, of course, is my personal opinion. JRM, one of the clowns who runs Wikipedia 19:46, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

I claim that User: is at the very least a "Sollog" shill. I've created a user page for that IP which outlines a possible case for an IP block. Could someone please look into whether that IP is considered an open proxy? Thanks. --MarkSweep 20:57, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC) is a server in the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania area operated by DDUK Hosting, the owners of, an open proxy. Wyss 21:49, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Wyss here, editing via anon open proxy at : )
Me again, same proxy 21:57, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
...and it's me again, editing now in my normal, unproxied way. Notice that when I was editing via surffreedom, the identical IP address was reflected. Methinks we've another sockpuppet in our midst. Thanks, MarkSweep. Wyss 22:01, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Huh? What just happened? Is someone impersonating Wyss? Or is that really Wyss demonstrating how to use open proxies? Anyway, could we get an admin to look into the open proxy issue? Thanks. --MarkSweep 22:07, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No worries, MarkSweep, that was me, Wyss, using the same open proxy that Ennis used. Go to and try editing this page via their web-based proxy yourself. Wyss 22:09, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Maybe I should explain in more detail... I traced IP to a server in Philadelphia, found it was a hosting company, hunted around their site and quickly found an anon surfing service with a free tryout feature, then used that service to edit this page to see what user IP address would pop up and lo, it was the same as the anon poster, Wyss 22:12, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why I unprotected it

Yesterday, I received telephone calls from 4 different people about this page being protected. The major objection seems to be to our having a link to the article. We have every right to have that link, but it will be sensible to note that Sollog fans claim it to be libellous.

My unprotection should not be treated as special, but just an ordinary unprotect by an ordinary admin. Use your usual judgment as to whether and when it needs to be protected again, if it does. Jimbo Wales 20:37, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Phone calls? That sounds a little inappropriate. This is an Internet project, after all, and tracking you down by phone could be considered a mild form of stalking or harassment. A2Kafir 20:47, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Can you discuss the nature and content of the phone calls? Like who called and when, and what the specific complaints were? If this talk page isn't the appropriate place, can you discuss it elsewhere? Just curious. --MarkSweep 21:20, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This is quite interesting, because if it really were four different people, then there are three more Sollog supporters than most of us think there are. JRM 20:59, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)
As I said, open dialogue is not possible with Ennis, who has sockpuppeted via the telephone in the past as well. Ask yourselves, how did four separate people manage to track Wales down in a single day? Did he get callback numbers and names? One thing's for sure, it appears Ennis has hit Wales' button somehow. Since this seems so outside Wiki procedure, and the rules have become murky, I'll abstain from further participation on this topic until clear rules have been re-established. Wyss 21:10, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Don't make more out of it than it is. Sollog happens to be the first kook (there, I've said it) dedicated enough to actually get through to an admin on the phone. That it happens to be Jimbo is not coincidence, of course. Jimbo has neither the time nor the inclination to argue with kooks on why their accusations of slander are unwarranted, least of all in the off chance that they are not, when all he has to do is unprotect the article and let the wiki mechanism handle it. As for rules: I recall the rule that says "ignore all rules". I think that's one of those cases here. JRM 21:14, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)
Ok JRM, you convinced me : ). Wyss 21:18, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
There are devices that alter your telephone voice dramatically; it's possible our friend Sollog has one. A2Kafir 21:23, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Just to be clear - no change of rules here! Please continue editing in the usual way. :-) The article already looks much better than it did. The phone calls were from 4 separate people, and they were mostly just insisting that we delete the page. 3 of the 4 I would characterize as hostile.
The emails I have been getting are much much worse. One person claiming to represent Sollog wrote a particularly vile personal attack on my wife and daughter -- I won't repeat it in a public forum. --Jimbo Wales 22:08, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I am sorry to hear that, I take the freedom to quote a report by the Dutch government about "cults" here
"Whenever there is an absolute truth at stake, the manners become careless. This applies both to the owners as well as their opponents of that truth and to all people involved. " from the 1982 book Between stigma and charisma/Tussen stigma en charisma by Paul Schnabel page 343.
Andries 22:41, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've been advocating deleting the page from the start. I'm not saying I was "right all along"... I just felt it would worthless promotion for a spammer in any form (and now it seems to be not worth the effort). Wyss 22:17, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Maybe not, but (IMHO) it's a matter of principle now. The consensus was to keep the article, and to change that decision just because some net kook made some nasty phone calls means that anyone can get Wikipedia to do anything they want with very little effort. Gamaliel 22:24, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
'k, Gamaliel, you've convinced me, too. : ) Wyss 22:27, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think it's valuable if only for the precedent: don't let the bullies of the world get to us by avoiding them out of fear. Many people voted to delete just for Sollog's... sorry, Sollog's followers ' obnoxious behaviour, others added keep because they thought that alone made him notable (which of course it did not) but let's face it: Sollog is notable enough to have an article. And no matter what doom and gloom we call on ourselves with articles that invite the less civilized members of the human race to attack us, we are an encyclopedia and should still do it. To paraphrase what I said on the VfD nomination, because I'm lazy: "If a million idiots on a million typewriters are out to attack us on an article that meets our standards, it's still an article that meets our standards, and by Jimbo we shall not cede it." Of course, that's easy for me to say if I'm not the one who has to catch all the flak. Someone give Jimbo a call to tell him we all love him. :-) JRM 22:28, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)
Oh, what Gamaliel said before I could. :-) JRM 22:28, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

I voted to keep this article on the assumption that, if it were smashed the bits by Sollog's supporter (as I diplomatically put it), said person would quickly be banned, until there were none of him left. Keep your enemies close to you, as they say. Have there been any recent attempts to hack / crash / deny the service of Wikipedia? -Ashley Pomeroy 22:43, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(reads 'Know thy special friend' below). Ah. Ah. I see. Fantastic picture, it has to be said. There is something to be said for being known as 'pornographer and X'. -Ashley Pomeroy 22:55, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Why is there an NPOV tag on this article? The article merely presents facts and doesn't even come out and point out the obvious - "Hey, this guy is a loon". All the Sologites complain about are some links, and a couple obviously valid links do not an NPOV dispute make. If the Sollogites want to hash out specific problems and provide links or evidence of their own, they are welcome to, of course, but until then I don't think their ranting is enough to justify tagging this article. Gamaliel


I believe congratulations are in order for all those who've edited here. MarkSweep, Hoary, Wyss, Gamaliel, Rlandmann, A2Kafir and last but certainly not least Jimbo Wales, I thank you all. I think we can safely say that this was a productive collaboration, and the result (such as it is now) against all odds.

I'm still accounting for the possibility that Sollog and his followers (if such there are) will come here to stir up trouble, but personally I'm not the least bit scared of the possible consequences. Are you? :-)

Regardless of what you think of Sollog for the moment, consider this: Wikipedia is the only place on earth where something like this could have been written. Not on someone's personal website. Certainly not on Usenet. Not even in a newspaper, as evidenced by Altman and his comedy hour. If anyone now wants to know who Sollog is, they can just come to Wikipedia and walk away fully informed. And that, my friends, is why Wikipedia is so great. I swear, if Wikipedia had an anthem, I'd be singing it right now. Apologies for being so POV. :-) JRM 03:28, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

Obviously JRM deserves to be congratulated as well, for his contributions and his persistent calls for openness. So, congratulations! --MarkSweep 03:36, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have been keeping an eye on the page and had intended to do some copy editing once it was unprotected. All my concerns have already been addressed. Good job everyone. Fire Star 06:44, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

After just finishing my read-through of this talk page, I would like to vociferously second the congratulatory remarks of those that have gone before me. Crises often bring out the best in a community, and while this isn't exactly a crisis, it is certainly a good exercise of and for Wikipedia policy, operating procedure, and most importantly spirit. I am so pleased that Wikipedia exists in the form that I have just witnessed. I hope that this page can be salvaged insofar as a landmark or reminder of the quality here. Truth will out. --Iosif 01:22, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm impressed. The article is great, it is as fair and unbiased as something like this can be, not even taking into consideration the "other" obstacles. Above all, the information in it is useful, which is the whole point of an encyclopedia anyway, right? Fantastic work from all of you, and you proved that Wikipedia can work (I believe some Slashdot users had some criticism on the overall WP model earlier today regarding this article). Inky 02:51, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Alleged NPOV dispute

A2X, whose only contributions have been "Sollog"-related, has just applied a "dispute" thingie to the main page. A2X, I'm aware that the Sollogites are not happy with the page as it stands, but so far they haven't been able to say anything much that's different and coherent, and that stands up to scrutiny. Are you disputing something on the page (and not merely saying that others dispute it), and if so, precisely what is it that you dispute and precisely what is your argument? -- Hoary 07:19, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As I said before, saying "I think these two links are biased" with no evidence or anything beyond that presented is not enough for an NPOV dispute. I'm removing the tag on that basis until some sort of legitimate case is made. Gamaliel 07:21, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hoary and Galamiel beat me to it, but I'll say it anyway. Please demonstrate the bias with some specific examples. Wyss 07:26, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please delete this page

Most of the people posting here have made false remarks about there being no fans or members of TOH. The statement by Jim Wales proves all the anti-Sollog posters were wrong. I'm a TOH Elder and I've corrected the most glaring errors on the article page and included info about Bibliographies and such that are correct. Also, if you really need to know what Sollog means there is an in depth definition by Sollog at

Anyway, stop the wars and delete this page since it filled with errors about there being no Toh members etc.

Wales knows people from around the world who are TOH members called him physically on the phone, I'm sure more are calling him today. All TOH wants is not false information about Sollog here and TOH does not want false information (i.e. Altman lies) to be promoted by Wikipedia.

That being said, treat Sollog like any other article, list his credits, books, music etc.

Mention his most famous achievements, i.e. prophecies and founding of TOH

As to all the remarks that are biased leave them out.

That way members of TOH don't have to harass Wikipedia and Jim Wales.


TOH ELDER [above comment unsigned by at 14:54, 2004 Dec 12 UTC]

Please sign your comments with ~~~~. Thank you for the link. If you believe this page is filled with errors, then please point out what they are, and why they are errors. The things you deleted (for example, that many think Sollog supporters are either not real or very limited in number) were not stated as facts, but as major opinions by people. The article didn't say Sollog was a kook, but that he had received a Kook of the Month Award. This is true, and we do not express support by merely mentioning it.

That being said, treat Sollog like any other article, list his credits, books, music etc.. Wikipedia is not an advertising board. We will mention Sollog's most notable achievements, but we cannot list everything he's ever done or written. We will certainly not have inline links to Sollog material; we don't have that for any article. We already point people to the Sollog site, and they can get anything else they want from there.

As to all the remarks that are biased leave them out. Please read and understand Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. We are required to put in biased remarks if they are often made, provided we properly attribute them. For example: many people do say there is nobody but Sollog supporting him. It doesn't matter if that's true or false, we must still say it. Sollog supporters are free to provide their own opinions on this, and we will list them as well, but we will not censor information because somebody doesn't like it.

That way members of TOH don't have to harass Wikipedia and Jim Wales. They don't have to do that period. And they shouldn't, as I'm pretty sure there are laws against it. JRM 15:09, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

Note that large amounts of existing material were deleted prior to starting a discussion here. Don't do that. Talk first, edit later. Since I disagree with most of your removals and the current version does not meet our standards in either style or neutrality, I've reverted the article, and added a note about his name. Please talk things out here first. If we agree that things need to be changed, we can do so on a case-by-case basis. Do not start cutting wholesale from the article because you don't like certain things. I agree there's still room for improvement, but we won't get it by mass deleting. JRM 15:22, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

TOH Elder at

I'm interested in knowing more about Sollog's followers. TOH Elder, your handle seems to imply some authority with Sollog's religion. I assume you haven't registered as a wiki user because you want to preserve your anonymity and I respect that, but could you let us know a little more about yourself? How did you first learn about Sollog? Through the USENET? Does TOH have regular meetings? How many TOH members are there around the world? What is your role with TOH? Do you know Sollog personally? Are you one of the people who called Jimbo Wales? Only answer what your comfortable with, of course, but the more we know about TOH, the more we can do to ensure that the facts are being presented fairly.Wyss 19:37, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Note that was blocked for 24 hours. --MarkSweep 21:38, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Noted and retracted. Wyss 22:36, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Know thy special friend

Re: wikipediasucks: What an odd piece of work. Sollog's followers have even more free time than I do. I managed to get banned from the forums pretty quickly, but I guess that's what happens when you impersonate The Great and Powerful SOLLOG. What little discussion was there were pretty mundane vandalism instructions: use different IPs, vandalise popular articles, etc. Gamaliel 21:26, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And at right is wikipediasucks' depiction of our beloved Jimbo. Personally, I think it's a flattering portrayal. Gamaliel 21:29, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

According to his "news" site (see the direct link posted by JRM above), Our Special Friend has recently registered the domain "". This is truly remarkable. Didn't Ennis's company AIS win a lawsuit against someone who was using a domain name based on an trademwark owned by AIS? Our Special Friend apparently doesn't realize that "Wikipedia" has been registered (or is this still pending?) as a service mark. --MarkSweep 23:20, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I won't link to the site at the newly registered domain, and I'd encourage everyone to similarly abstain from direct linking (as incoming links appear to be used by Google's secret page rank algorithm). Our Special Friend has already tried, unsuccessfully, to promote his new site on Wikipedia today – no need for us to help him with that. I have to be POV here and say it directly: the site in question is a vile piece of sick attacks against Jimmy Wales and his family, and against Wikipedia(SM) in general. The gist of the personal attacks that were made against JW over the phone is not hard to imagine now either. IANAL, but in my uninformed opinion the new site in question is slanderous, it encourages harassment, and it looks like a violation of the "Wikipedia" service mark. I feel really sorry that JW and his family got singled out for this treatment. One item of interest on Our Special Friend's new site is the forum, which contains a "hit list" of articles to be vandalized and an outline of a strategy of using anonymizing proxies. --MarkSweep 21:38, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think a link at Hate_group#Hate_groups_and_new_religious_movements and Hate_group#New_religious_movements could be appropriate. Andries 21:48, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for retracting that, Andries. Consensus is that TOH is a Sollog sockpuppet army, not a group. Even if by some odd chance it is a group, we should not indirectly state that as fact by adding that link. JRM 21:59, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC) (Forgot to sign)

Pages targeted for vandalism: God, Jesus, Devil, Jim Wales, George W. Bush, Britney spears, Nostradamus, Adolf Hitler, Einstein, Sollog, Wikipedia, as well as anything linked from the Main Page. --MarkSweep 21:52, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We should probably make a list of potental IP ranges and post a warning notice to Wikipedia:Vandalism in Progress. Gamaliel 21:56, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Seconded. Go to red alertDEFCON 1 immediately. JRM 21:58, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)
I've posted a warning here. Perhaps some more technically capable person could post information about potential IP addresses. Gamaliel 22:18, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Steady on, chaps. I'd thought that it was pretty easy to register, where XYZ was a registered trademark/servicemark. (There certainly seem to be a lot of sites named in this way, and it must be conceded that some are more interesting and perhaps even more valuable than the corresponding What surprises me more is that any Ennis entity ever won any lawsuit, as I'd thought that he was pure blowhard -- perhaps this is explained in one of the newspaper articles or web pages that's already linked, but I confess I haven't read all of them as I've already spent hugely more time on Ennis than he's worth. Anyway, it's good of Ennis to provide a hit list of articles that he intends to sollogize and that therefore can be put on one's "watch" list. I'd keep an eye on articles such as those on James Randi, too. (But why Britney Spears? Keywords such as "nutbar" spring to mind.) -- Hoary 22:15, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Personally, I'm sort of grateful we've moved on from the "politely discussing things with alleged Sollog followers" stage to go to the "RC patrol" stage. Suffering fools gladly was rather tiring me out. I am a little worried that people like Sollog will actually never tire from their attempts, though. Common standards for sanity and boredom just don't apply here. JRM 22:29, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)
Never's a long time of course, and the half-life of this sort of behavior has its limits, but as long as the article's up, one should be prepared for at least several months (and possibly years) of sporadic vandalism. Wyss 23:28, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
OSF has listed Wales' telephone number and email address on his main site. Wyss 22:43, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'd like to express my opinion that despite OSF's urgings to his followers to vandalize wiki and harass its founder offline, I believe this is a tactic to deceive us into fearing that he does have followers. I'd also like to point out that getting a few friends (or paid actors/associates) to make telephone calls is an alternative explanation for some of the offline harassment we've heard about. Finally, I do think we're dealing with a full-blown psychopath who has probably already crossed the bounds of lawful behavior, acting online through an army of sockpuppets who use identical language, syntax and punctuation (along with a rather limited number of IP addresses, after all) and wiki users may want to ponder being careful about protecting their privacy while responding to this attack. Wyss 23:00, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not sure how to deal with this, being a newbie from /. with only a few Wikipedia contributions under my belt. Quite a bit to learn here... If it weren't controversial, I'd correct the "trademwark" error above, but not even sure if that's appropriate here. However, after looking over the article, this Talk discussion, and some related topics, I think three additional aspects should be addressed more directly:

  1. How unintentionally funny these characters are.
  2. The harm they do to the SNR of the Web. (The de facto death of the newsgroups especially bothers me.)
  3. What is to be done?

With regards to #3, there are so many behavioral similarities that I think there must be some unified thread underlying their sociopathy, and that creates the hope (dream? fantasy?) of a "cure". By the way, on a couple of occasions I've greatly offended such trollish characters. I think that makes me suspect. ;-) Shanen 10:08, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Wiki assholes"

I am disappointed that I didn't make the "Wiki assholes" list on the wikipediasucks forums. People who did make the cut are:


Congratulations, and if I work harder maybe I can win during the next round. Gamaliel 23:06, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Heh heh. Wyss 23:11, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Looks like I missed the cut, too. Oh, well, life (by the grace of Sollog) goes on. A2Kafir 23:34, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The amusing thing is that all of the people in question are claimed to be "admins." BTW, what do you think of my elaboration to the article? I feel the more troll fodder they/he gives us, the more we have to include in the article - in the interest of covering all perspectives, of course. Pakaran (ark a pan) 23:09, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
While I appreciate and agree with your perspective, I think your additions slant the article into a combative perspective. If the consensus is to "not cede" the content of a neutral, fact-oriented article on this topic, I'd suggest reverting your additions.Wyss 23:22, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have to agree here. There is no way we can look unbiased neutral if we spell out in full detail what Sollog does to our precious encyclopedia and its beloved founder. I am as reviled as you are by these attacks, but I thought even Andries' remark about attacking Jimbo's family was being too specific. After all, is there any reason to assume his attacks on Altman were less acidic? And yet we don't go around hunting for sources and spelling those out in full detail. Our obligation here is to inform the reader neutrally, not to nail a certain part of Sollog's anatomy to the wall. Mentioning that Sollog's followers have attacked Jimbo personally is enough. I'm not sure even the mention of vandalizing Wikipedia should be included, because this is, I hate to say it, "not notable". I think Sollog makes himself look bad enough without publicizing our righteous indignation at what he did to us. JRM 23:41, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)
Ha, almost caught myself there. Of course we are biased. We should just explicitly acknowledge that, and take care to not give excessive attention to ourselves. JRM 23:52, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)
JRM, I agree with your earlier (23:41) position: Snip snip. Oh, as for my appearance in the sollogites' shortlist of fundamental orifices (as quoted above), 't ain't no big thing. I'd be amused to discover that he they liked me, but otherwise couldn't give a damn. (OTOH I'd be delighted to be acknowledged as causing serious irritation to a verifiably real cult, one with buildings, assets, meetings, brainwashing, punishments, etc.) -- Hoary 03:56, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
But this is no cult, it's a spammer.Wyss 09:27, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
In that case, may I suggest you take up Scientologist-baiting? --Carnildo 04:55, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
After all, is there any reason to assume his attacks on Altman were less acidic? — On the contrary: In one of his City Paper pieces, Altman states that Ennis spammed him with unsolicited faxes and made bomb threats, whereupon Altman reported Ennis to the FBI. --MarkSweep 00:04, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Jeez. I guess we should be lucky that he's restricted himself to "merely" harassing Jimbo with personal calls and defamatory websites. But let's not give him ideas... JRM 00:09, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)
Like he doesn't already have them? It's well-documented- he wrote these menus of harassment long ago and is picking from them a la carte. Wyss 09:23, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Perfect, Pakaran. "Succinct" seems to be the best word for it. It still conveys the general unsavoriness of the Unmentionables without going in too much detail. JRM 23:55, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

Neat. Wyss 08:57, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comment from Sollog mailing list subscriber

This was added to the article by User: and properly removed, but I thought it was worth preserving on the talk page:

I have been on his mailing list for years and never once have I seen a "True" prediction comming from the list. Not to mention, I have been on able to unsubscribe from the list either. And on top of all that I got an email from them today stating that this site was calling me a moron, which is not at all the case. This site is simply stating the facts. Keep up the good work.

Thanks for the feedback. JamesMLane 21:47, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm on his list and a member of TOH. The list alerts people to new prophecies. [profanity removed]

Sollog 911 warning

Sollog on Shuttle (113th mission) and March 11th Madrid Massacre (11/3 eurodating)

Sollog on Xmas Quake in Iran (hit at 9PM EST)

These links keep getting erased, just look at the history.

Keep them up and then add them to the article while it is still on the site. The article will be ordered taken down. It's only a matter of time. 14 Dec 2004, posted anonymously

A Lonely Spammer

Ennis' anti-wiki forum is strangely quiet for a seer with lots of fans and followers (in this respect it's much like the other Sollog forum I've seen). There are some posts and a couple of sockpuppet replies, all in the mildly disjointed syntax we've come to know so well. I don't really recommend visiting (I'm rather jaded but felt uncomfortable just reading some of the personal attacks, they're that twisted and desperate).

IMO Ennis doesn't really believe he has any followers. The countless skidmarks he's left on forums across the Internet show a serial pattern of desperate sockpuppet attempts to recruit members, which always seem to fail, followed by ROTFL remarks about how inept he is, which he invariably responds to with ominous remarks (such as, "you'll all be dead..."), then vulgarities and legal threats which end when the sysop bans him.

He claimed Elizabeth Smart had been murdered by her parents/grandparents [6] [7]. On his TOH site he claims to have proved that the earth is the mathematical centre of the universe [sic], but one has to buy his book to read the specifics.

On one of his sockpuppets (Jahiro) actually admits to the porn sites...

07-31-03 "The other sites do have some porn related material... It should be obvious that the whole point of ALL the AIS sites is to LINK the USER back to to hear the true message." [8]

I imagine he has perhaps a trickle of income from the porn, going by what I know about the economics of thinly promoted pay-to-play sites, combined with his frequent and strident remarks about money (usually to disparage the current victim of his anger).

Noting the almost complete emptiness of his forums, and almost incredible lack of sympathetic replies to his USENET spam, I doubt he sells more than two or three of his "religious" memberships per year to curiosity seekers, if that many (he would of course disagree with my speculation).

After viewing dozens of USENET and forum posts relating to Sollog I have seen zero evidence of even one follower, only postings under pseudo religious or occultish names with that familiar syntax and punctuation style (and sometimes the same vulgarities), invariably answered by ridicule, derision and if in a moderated forum, by a block. I've even come to suspect that his purported wife Nikkee (the Goddess Warrior) may on some level be a sockpuppet, an online fictional fantasy of his real-life wife Nicole. Wyss 22:52, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I know of exactly 1 genuine follower of Sollog, but hardly does the fellow do him any favours. He is alternately incoherent, expounding Sollog, bemoaning Sollog (for banning him from forums), and fantasizing about having anal sex with women. He uses socks and is irregular so he is a little tough to track down (esp. with the new Google) but here is one example [9]. --Cchunder 10:32, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
are you claiming SOLLOG is not GOD and knows the truth about earth? he has also published many prophecies like 911, it's all on the site so why don't you get a clue. and saying he is related to porn is just false and slanderous and the attorneys of TOH and SOLLOG will SUE thickypedia and Jimbo "Pornmonger" Wales for FIFTEEN MILLION DOLLARS for each of these false claims. read the site you idiot and you'll see his wife is real and calling her a sockpuuppet or fictional is just SLANDER! you muist delete this article within 24 hours or you will rue the day you were born. get a clue you morons
TOH elder
(Is it convincing enough? Perhaps some more insults are needed? I don't think Sollog could construct a phrase like "rue the day", but I have to make do with what I have.) JRM 00:20, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)
Erm, don't block me, please. Here, I'll prove I'm not Sollog: I hereby affirm and express the opinion that Sollog is neither God, nor outfitted with anything remotely resembling civility or common sense. You'll never hear him say that, I guarantee. JRM 00:20, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)
JRM, you are neither angry enough nor sufficiently borderline dyslexic to imitate his unique style convincingly :) Wyss 00:40, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I know. I just can't do it. I have this mental block against idiocy and hatred. *sobs* I'm sorry, people. B-) Goodnight from over here, and happy editing. JRM 00:44, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)
Dude, it was a valiant attempt......A2Kafir 01:08, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hey, I thought it was pretty darn good. JRM, you make a much better psychotic than I would. :) Although I do agree with MarkSweep's improvement to it. JamesMLane 02:11, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

you see,you guys ARE biased posted anonymously by 06:16, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We never denied that we were. Everyone is biased. Even (some would say especially) Sollog. We just try to represent all biases fairly. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If at any time you feel your point of view is underrepresented, feel free to come with constructive suggestions for improving the article. We will listen.
Also, they say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. It's not, but I think it's a lot milder than putting up websites where you insult and harass the family of a man who has done far greater good for this world than you or Sollog can ever hope to achieve. Does that make me biased? Then it's a bias I'm proud to have. Good day, sir. JRM 11:18, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

How many people did Jim Wales say called him from TOH to complain? So that shows all these remarks that there are no TOH members is false. 14 Dec 2004, posted anonymously

I believe it was in his "Oy McVeigh" article that Altman claimed Ennis called him on the phone, impersonating a journalist. If that is true, it's also conceivable that someone employed deceptive tactics when contacting JW. --MarkSweep 17:20, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Voice-distorters are sold for this specific purpose (legitimate use would be for a female to impersonate a male to scare off someone). They are sold in catalogs and on-line. That could explain the four "different" calls. I'm sure the local phone company would be happy to look up the records of the calls, if necessary (if Sollog keeps up the harassment). A2Kafir 17:46, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

AIS as peddler of titillating images

Several people have rather convincingly alleged, and sollogites have vehemently denied, that AIS sells sexual or shocking images. But this talk has been scattered. (A lot of the talk about this on this discussion page has taken place in the "deity" section.) This makes it harder to follow the various arguments. I'm reluctant to shunt people's comments around this page -- it would take some time for me to do it to my own satisfaction, and people would (perhaps rightly) resent it -- but invite those interested in the porn/"Mondo" angle to discuss it here, perhaps by moving their own comments here. -- Hoary 11:06, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In truth, Sollog and his followers [sic] have denied that Sollog is a pornographer, but don't deny that AIS, which owns the Sollog website, sells porn (which it does). The Sollog PoV seems to be that AIS is merely a separate publisher of Sollog, so he can't help it if his publisher also happens to peddle porn. One Sollog sockpuppet even admitted (see previous section, A Lonely Spammer) that the purpose of the porn to is to draw traffic to Sollog. This editor has done some research and is convinced that Sollog, AIS and John Ennis (along with the journalist D.E. Alexander, 24/7 News, the porn sites and an army of sockpuppet followers) are all the same entity, John Ennis aka Sollog. Wyss 11:55, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

TOH Members reporting Wikipedia and Jim Wales to FBI

Jim Wales has stated here several people contacted him by phone to remove this page due to it being nothing but an attempt to harass and defame Sollog, TOH and TOH Members. Most of the posters here refuse to except there are TOH members. So now TOH has informed their members to start filing complaints with the FBI that Wikipedia and most of you are harassing them over their religious beliefs. So your actions have caused Wikipedia to now be under investigation for RELIGIOUS HATRED. The fact is as Wales admitted there are members of TOH and the way you people are attacking Sollog is based on religious HATE. Your article on Sollog implies there are no TOH members. You're wrong and Wales even told you all on this page HE GOT CALLS FROM SEVERAL TOH MEMBERS.

Actually, what it says is that people dispute that there are any TOH members. Which is a fact - not everybody believes that TOH even exists outside of Ennis. When I looked, I couldn't find a single piece of independent evidence on the web or usenet to support the idea that any such organisation exists. If you're aware of any, please provide links - I have no problem with being proved wrong on this. --Rlandmann 00:46, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You can see at these pages Sollog and TOH are linking right to the FBI so TOH members can file complaints against all of you for posting RELIGIOUS HATE MATERIAL. I suggest you delete any and all pages about Sollog since you have all shown you are biased.

Here are links about how Wikiepedia and Jim Wales are now being targeted in an FBI investigation over how you people are harassing Sollog and TOH members.

I suspect that the FBI will be interested in some of the same questions that we are - such as making a vague accusation of "HATE MATERIAL" a little more specific, and of course, in whether TOH actually exists in any meaningful sense. --Rlandmann 00:46, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So the question is now, will the FBI who has a 3,000 page file on Sollog due to his accurate prophecies do anything about a blatant attack on Sollog and members of TOH? We briefly interrupt this anonymous comment by to bring you the following message:

Hmm, tricky, let me think.... no. It's good that the FBI has a file on Sollog, though. --MarkSweep 17:27, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Anonymous comment by continues: Sollog and members of TOH are in fact protected from harassment due to their religious beliefs, the FBI investigates such things. So look at the posts here, they pretty much say the same thing, look Sollog says he is GOD. (lie) There are no TOH members (lie) Sollog is a pornographer (lie) Sollog is wacko or crazy (lie) Sollog is the only person posting here with positive things to say about Sollog (lie).

TOH is also starting a 'class action' suit to go after Wikipedia and Jim Wales over this page. This is not a legal threat, I'm reporting on real events taking place now.

Do you see TOH members attacking anyones religious beliefs here?


Why are you all attacking anyones religious views here?

Why have you deleted all the posts to direct hits in his prophecies by Sollog.

Because they're all published only by Sollog, and Wikipedia is not an advertising service. If you're aware of any independent verifications of these "direct hits" then I'd be interested in seeing them. So far, every independent appraisal of Sollog's accuracy that I've read has been less than complimentary. There are many such opinions - at the moment, the article only links to one example (regarding Columbia). --Rlandmann 00:46, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The reason is you are scared, you don't want to intelligently debate the simple facts that Sollog has made direct hits on future events, he is one of the most investigated people in the history of the FBI for those hits and all the bs about how altman and other people reported him to the FBI is pure bs.

If Sollog threatened those people where is the case? Where was the arrest?

Now in 1995 Sollog was detained for the Oklahoma City bombing. He later sued the US government over it the case is eastern district of Pennsylvania 96CV 1499

It is Sollog aka GOD vs USA

Did Sollog win? --Rlandmann 00:46, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In TOH all members are GOD since the father of MANKIND is GOD, man was made in GODS image. So all your criticism of Sollog is due to ignorance, look in the mirror Sollog says even you are god. So what if TOH theology things MAN IS GODS IMAGE AND GOD?

So what!

Why are you people attacking Sollog and TOH members over it!

Where has anyone made an attack on TOH's theology? --Rlandmann 00:46, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There are many TOH members, in fact there are TOH members in almost every country on this planet now. The actions of most of you have now caused Wikipedia to be the subject of multiple complaints of RELIGIOUS HATRED.

There is no way Wikipedia can handle a Sollog page without bias, so just delete the Sollog page.

If Wikipedia thinks the Sollog article is not biased and filled with false and slanderous material meant to harass and defame Sollog and Members of TOH leave it up and explain it to the FBI.

Speaking as one of the ones who supported keeping the Sollog page during the VfD, I think you're being extreme. WP can handle a page like this, and it has done so in the past. Writing clear, accurate, and neutral articles on controversial subjects and people is de rigeur for some of the authors and editors here. Look at the pages about religious leaders such as L. Ron Hubbard and Pope Pius XII, plus seers such as Nostradamus and Madame Blavatsky and tell me that those articles are "biased" or "filled with false and slanderous material". Inky 03:23, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Similar complaints will also be made in Canada and the UK as well as Australia where TOH has members. TOH will not tolerate wholesale attacks on Sollog and TOH members on any web site.

You people should be ashamed of what you are doing.

It is pure harassment of Sollog and TOH members for one reason RELIGIOUS BELIEF.

The only mention of Sollog's or TOH's religious beliefs in the article is "all life is part of God and therefore GOD". Nobody has even commented on that belief, let alone criticised it... --Rlandmann 00:46, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you think wikipedia has the right to harass members of any religion you are wrong and this site, it's owners and the people using it will be prosecuted, if not by the FBI then by Canada or the UK or Australia. In fact a judgment in one Jurisdiction has already been done. A legal body has ORDERED Wikipedia to remove any and all references to Sollog and TOH immediately. The ORDER was posted on a site and it says it is being delivered directly to Jim Wales.

If you can actually tell us specifics about this order,, I'm sure we'd all be interested. What judgement? What jurisdiction? What legal body? What site? Of course, right now, having only the claim that it was A judgement in A jurisdiction that resulted in AN "ORDER" (so good, you capitalized it twice!) that was "posted on A site" before it was delivered to the person it actually affects, well, you can understand any reasonable person can understand our skepticism. I for one would be really interested in what jurisdiction posts its judgements online or makes them available for posting by other parties before notifying the party the judgement was passed against. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:32, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your actions have now involved the various jurisdictions in several countries that investigate RELIGIOUS HATE CRIMES.

Has TOH or it's members harassed you over your religious beliefs?

NO Thus ends the anonymous comment by

  • Comment A free discussion of the documented facts regarding Sollog and TOH, for the purpose of writing a collaborative encyclopedia article, doesn't even come close to reaching the definition of a religious hate crime. This writer interprets user's remarks as another predictable, tactical contribution by Mr Ennis himself, and believes these remarks are representative of the true harassment taking place, so here's some friendly advice for him:
Stick to the porn business... the cold reading and marketing skills displayed by Sollog aren't up to those required of an effective religious scam (which makes fuzzy-thinking folks feel so good about themselves, they'll part with their money to maintain the buzz). Worse, the artwork on is creepy and two-dimensional, the music is mediocre and boring and the mathematical content now and then shows some college-level talent but is accompanied by a complete lack of rigor and objectivity, with embarrassing results. One last hint, Old Testament anger isn't at all in style among most English speaking psychic fans these days... they want attractively packaged illusions wrapped in warmth and charisma : ) Wyss 17:59, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
An old word for what religious con-artists used to do in the old days was "projection." This usually appied to counterfeiting or "puffery." I think that it also applies in a modern psychological sense for the arguments of Ennis' sockpuppet army. It is projection in the sense that he feels free to spew vitriol (and porn, apparently) all over the internet, yet has such a hyper-sensitive reaction to largely neutral critical thinking exercised about his behaviour, carrying on about the slightest perceived slight in a way which would seeminly cause him to blow a gasket if such were directed back at him. Accusing everyone else of his own techniques, in other words. One would think a god should be more effective with his divine arguments... Fire Star 18:28, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Major revision suggestions

This section was inserted by anon user

1. Purpose of Wiki is NPOV the current Sollog article had major problems so these are suggested edits. Before reverting page to old page see if others agree certain things in current article are not NPOV

  • This anon poster is making major changes to the article without discussion and consensus, then asking for discussion and consensus before reverting his changes. Wyss 18:40, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

2. The KOOK of whatever is not a NPOV topic. It makes the whole Sollog article look biased, so if wiki really wants to maintain an above the sollog crowd look, drop the kook stuff.

  • The Kook awards are PoV, but documented, third-party information and therefore legitimate links. Wyss 18:40, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm beginning to think Sollog has a point here. A heading called "Accusations of Kookery" is a bit much. We shouldn't delete the kook stuff, but perhaps it can go in the section devoted to his usenet activity. Gamaliel 18:45, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Give it a suitably positive title, something like "Awards Recieved". Sollog can hardly object to that, can he? --Carnildo 23:15, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

3. Odds article, if you have links to real subjective analysis fine, links to anonymous stuff in usenet makes the whole thing look below wiki NPOV standards

  • The USENET material can reasonably be assumed to represent Sollog's past activities. Wyss 18:40, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

4. FBI stuff, if the FBI arrested him 10 years ago when altman made the claim fine, but to say look FBI when nothing came of it is not NPOV, everyone knows altman says anything he wants about sollog, he is biased

  • Ennis was apparently arrested by the FBI a decade ago. Wyss 18:40, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

5. Altman articles, is he the new wiki source? Maybe one altman piece but all of that altman stuff is nothing but advertising for altman and he makes wiki look biased

  • Altman has actually met Ennis and has an established record as an editor. They are somewhat PoV, but there is no wiki policy against linking to PoV articles. If Ennis can produce some links to positive commentary about Sollog by an author who is verfiably not Ennis, I'm sure the strong consensus will be to link to them. Wyss 18:40, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hopefully the article page can be greatly reduced and only important sollog info retained.

NPOV is the argument for the massive editing

If you want to debate each of the topics above, do it

the articles were not debated on here before insertion

Maybe the best thing is to strip the sollog article to a stub and then discuss each topic as it is posted as to if it is wiki standards or skeptic harassment

Attention needs to be paid to the fact there are some followers or members or whatever, maybe new wictionary word sollogite?

Heavy editing is needed to make article NPOV, each new topic should be discussed before insertion

  • The consensus appears to be that most of this has already been accomplished. Wyss 18:40, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Maybe just a simple stub is best

Sollog a controversial figure on the net who likes to sue people. Founder of TOH. Birthname John Ennis. Author of occult oriented books on Nostradamus and UFOS, etc.

Keep it short and sweet and get over this stuff

Too much time to waste on the whole thing

Keep it short and NPOV and do important work

  • Here, Ennis is pleading for what amounts to a deletion, a stub, anything to get the content he doesn't like removed from wiki. Wyss 18:40, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well,, the thing that makes Ennis notable, to my mind at least, is the public reaction to his behaviour. Whereas that is well documented in the public domain and can be reported in an encyclopaedia article, the existence of his followers (if any) isn't, for example. If you provide some verifiable citations as to their number and location, we'd be happy to mention them in the article. Fire Star 18:38, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Here's some material User: posted on my user page (not on my talk page):

keep the sollog page as stub it is not NPOV. All the kook and fbi and no followers stuff makes wiki look like a joke. Make it stub and do a serious section by section edit until you have a wiki article. That page as it was makes wiki look terrible. Be above Sollog's crew and do a short NPOV work.

I got a pretty good chuckle out of that, especially the exhortation to be above Sollog's crew, which simultaneously alleges that Sollog actually has a crew while displaying some remarkable insight into Sollog's standing as a reasonable contributor. --MarkSweep 18:51, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Prepare to be Slashdotted

--MarkSweep 19:01, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    • I imagine that /. serves up different ads for the same thread at different times, but when I visited that page I was served with this splendidly appropriate image. -- Hoary 01:12, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think that the anon had a point when he wrote that the current version of the article is biased. I understand very well that regular Wikipedia contributors are anti-Sollog and find it entertaining to ridicule someone whom they consider a complete fool but I think that Wikipedia is about excercising restraint. Andries 19:10, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think the article is pretty mellow. It says "Sollog claims..." then discusses why some people dispute the claims. What's wrong with that?A2Kafir 19:13, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Care to guess who our latest anonymous friend is and why He keeps deleting anything critical of Sollog? As was pointed out several times on this talk page, if there are verifiable, independent reports that are pro-Sollog, they should probably be included. The Philadelphia City Paper, the Washington Post, and even Usenet to a certain extent, are all verifiable sources. The assessment in those sources appears to be overwhelmingly skeptical at best, often crossing into ridicule. The article itself reflects that widespread skepticism, but should try to stay away from ridicule. IMHO the current version is the best in the short but dense history of this article, but could certainly be improved. If you have specific suggestions for improvement, by all means, list them here. --MarkSweep 19:22, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I know my comments on this probably won't be taken seriously since I do not have an account here and could easily be another 'sockpuppet' - but I thought I'd take a moment and say something. First of all, while this is an article about a person it seems (in its current form) to have elements that are overly ad hominum. I think the article would be well served by forking into two seperate areas of debate. What I mean by this is that there should be a section on Sollog the man/god/fluffy bunny and a section about his purported psychic abilities/predictions/ideas. Simply because a person is bad or good doesn't make the ideas that come from them the same. If you fork the discussion in this way you will most likely be able to make clear factual statements about Sollog the person and his history, then have a seperate article about his beliefs and predictions (also forked into the skeptical and the true believers) 20:12, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)DrkNexus.
Ennis' prose easier to detect than that. It's not my impression that the article presents Ennis as good or bad. I do suspect, however, that any neutral description of his activities (forked or not) will inevitably describe things as the current article already does. Wyss 20:21, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Those who think Wikipedia users are biased should read hostile media effect Mastgrr 20:39, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

John P Ennis??

This guy's name is John P Ennis? Seriously? I bet he had a tough time at school... ;-) -- ChrisO 20:51, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ennis is a well-known Irish surname. [10] Wyss 20:55, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
And Patrick is a well-known Irish Christian name, but using it as an initial before Ennis is, well, unfortunate... -- ChrisO 21:00, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That slapping sound you heard was my palm connecting with my forehead :) Wyss 21:14, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
A frustrating youth is a possible and likely cause of later psychoses, I hope our frustrated friend Mr. Ennis at one point will be able to get the medical treatment he needs. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 21:45, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

where's the bias?

As an infrequent Wikipedia user, I stumbled into this off slashdot ( ) today. And while I don't want to get into too much of a fuss, I do have a few questions, mostly concerning TOH.

1. What is TOH i.e. what is 'Hayah, etc? 2. Why is Sollog (or Ennis or however he prefers to be called), and not God, revered as the Great Leader? From the way the article and this discussion have been going, it seems like TOH is a way for Sollog to garner more attention for himself. Again, I speak without knowing anything about the religion - and I'm curious to know more; I do not mean to offend.

I hope to learn about TOH and then make my opinions. 22:01, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bias in the Article

As an unbiased observer, I read the article and noticed a...slant against the supporters of Sollog and his ideas.

With that said, I purpose that Mr. Wales open an inquiry into what exactly should be added to this article, or rather what this article shall be.

I understand Mr./Ms.'s slant toward Sollog, there appears to be a link between him and

I also understand Mr./Ms. Wyss's (Forgive the incorrect spelling, if it is indeed incorrect.) slant against Sollog.

Therefore, I think it would be fair to let them both submit their version of the article (Or if Mr. Wyss does not want to do it, someone else) via e-mail, or another form, to Mr. Wales, letting him merge the two versions. As a balance, I believe that both Mr./Ms. Wyss and Mr./Ms. should post their versions of the article in this Discussion page, and have both locked in place, unalterable. This would allow the nuetrality of the article to be discussed and have it so one could not say that something was left out without proof of it, a paper trail if you will.

Both versions should follow the rules of Wikipedia, both will be merged together with the same neutrality. If Mr. Wales believes himself to be biased against Sollog, and the associated followers, he should select someone else to merge them. His bias would be evaluated by himself. If, after the final article is posted, there are still concerns over the nuetrality of the article, someone else, who is unfamiliar with this, shall merge them. By 'concerns', I believe that if 10 posters, ALL with unique addresses, and not in the same general geographic area, will warrant a new "merger".

That is my proposal. I hope it is, at the least, considered as a possible resolution to this conflict.

As a side note, which ONLY applies to the owner of (And, at my request, should not be used against him/her): You registered the site under Coral Springs, ST. ST is not a state. I think you may want to change this back to where it truly is, which is still easily figured out.

Edit: You know what, I spent 30 minutes fleshing that idea out and I forget to add my User Name! But to be quite frank, I am still not sure how to do this, so here is my best shot.


I originally voted to delete the article, and would still do so. I had nothing to do with writing it, although I've done some research into Mr Ennis and participated at length in the discussion. Wyss 23:23, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

While we appreciate the effort and enthusiasm that went into your proposal, we already have plenty of means for handling content disputes. Jimbo will not be participating in this process unless he wishes to, and if he does it will most likely be as merely another editor. He simply does not have the time to preside over every controversial article and that is just not the way wikipedia works.

What we could do, right here and now, without resorting to reinventing the wheel, is just some good old fashioned editing. Help us identifity specific problems and biased elements in the article and we can all work together to fashion a solution. Gamaliel 23:54, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, it is hard to narrow down the exact bias, I can see it, and I do recognize it, but putting it into words is harder. The best that I can come up with is that where as the pro-arguements are short, the arguements that 'attempt to shoot the pro-arguments full of holes' are much longer. Although I suppose specific examples of Sollog's correctedness could be seen as aligning itself with this religious belief (Note, I have not read the other Religious belief pages, so I do not know if aligning occurs there.)

Well, thanks for considering it!


I'm repeating myself here -- I've tried to make this point elsewhere on this cluttered talk page: IMHO an article that devotes 50% of its text to one side of the issue and 50% to the other side is not necessarily fair or balanced. If the real situation is such that most people view things one way and a minority has a diverging opinion, then a report that grossly overrepresents the minority view could be seen as distorted. That's not to say that the majority of people necessarily gets to dictate its views, since the inherent and/or empirical plausibility of a proposition has to be taken into account as well. In this case, Ennis's predictions are imprecise to the point that they have no serious empirical predictive power, they are only used to justify post hoc his claims that he was right all along, etc. So his position is inherently weak. Moreover, independent observers (on Usenet and in the newspaper articles referenced here) have uniformly dismissed his alleged psychic abilities. So both the evidence that we all can look at and published opinion don't support Ennis's claims; it's only Ennis and his sockpuppets who persistently assert that he has psychic powers. In this situation it would be blatantly unfair, IMHO, to devote too much attention to the guy. Bad analogy: would you expect a serious article on the concept of perpetual motion machines to devote as much space to people claiming to have invented such devices as it does to explaining why such machines are widely believed to be impossible? --MarkSweep 06:11, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

someone has set up this topic the bomb!

this topic is on its way to becoming news-of-the-weird-worthy. i'll buy an artifact of this religion to put next to my printed archive of john titor's futurehistory predictions, my ormus generator, my perpetual motion machine, and my collection of poorly translated japanese games. John P. Ennis is the Luke Stewart (of mediafusion fame) of today. he and "his followers" setting up numerous attack pages, reporting the wikipedia owner to the FBI for content he doesn't control, and giving and receiving accusations of "sock puppet armies" and persecution will keep my checking back on this every day. hell, i think i'll put this in the campus newspaper. keep it up! i know you guys can iron this out! edit: they're posting jim wales' phone number on their website, and telling their readers to call him to take this page down!! isn't that in violation of numerous anti-harassment laws? posted anonymously at 23:01, 14 Dec 2004 by


Hmmm, I know that Wikipedia editors are loathe to mention wikipedia in wikipedia articles, but I think in this case, his article on Wikipedia was newsworthy enough to get a slashdot discussion... Don't you think that wikipedia and the slashdot article should be mentioned in the "Disputed following" and "External link" sections, respectively? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 23:07, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Probably not, considering it just happened. Perhaps after things cool down a bit, a simple link to the slashdot discussion would be suitable in the #External_links section. If it is deemed notable, it would probably be more suiting in the Wikipedia article than this one. --Alterego 23:10, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Already noted at slashdot effect. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:01, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

In case I forget

Based on the quote, "all life is part of God and therefore GOD," someone should add a link to list of people claiming to be deities in the see also section of this article once it us unprotected. --Alterego 23:10, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think a link to the list is justified. A link from the list already exist. If a category is made based on the list, then the article should be added. But as it is, the link is not very valuable, certainly not enough to waste space in see also, may be make a piped link on words such as "proclaiming that Sollog was God". But in any case, it doesn't seem very clear that he himself has claimed that he personally was god (claiming that "all life is god" is different). So may be he should even be removed from the list. Paranoid 23:51, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The article now bears four citations to him making this claim. It's rather set in stone and verifiable.
"John Patrick Ennis; testified in court in Philadelphia in May 1996 that he was God. "...all life is part of God and therefore GOD"[11][12][13][14]"
I like your idea about placing these folks in the category. There are starting to be enough of them :) --Alterego 00:11, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Minor editing change suggested

When the page is unprotected, please, someone change "Both Altman and Reich have contacted..." to "Altman and Reich have both contacted..." That would sound better, as there have been at least five individuals attacked by Sollog, but starting the sentence with "both" weakly implies that there's been two. Thanks. Paranoid 23:47, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand how the reader would get that impression since the same paragraph names five specific targets of harassment. Gamaliel 23:55, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

comment from someone new to wikipedia...

Hey Folks, I just wandered over from Slashdot and just want to tell you how refreshing it is to follow this discussion (it's also pretty damn funny, but I'm sure you're aware of that too!)

If I could vote, I would say do NOT delete the page. It is a sterling example of a measured, rational response to an irrational position. It is also a fascinating example of a COMMUNITY response to what is apparently one man's delusions.

/Hehe, just don't let OSF hear you say that. >> Seriously, and this is a little OT, has Wales done anything about the nonsense regarding his wife and children? If nothing else, that surely breaks some law somewhere.

- Ze Great Launchpad 04:17, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)/

Wikipedia rocks!


P.S. -- I apologize in advance if I'm breaking any wikipedia rules by posting this. Like I said, I've never been on before. Comment made at 01:26, 15 Dec 2004 by

No, it's fine. But do note that there's no question (other than in the mind of John P. Ennis) of deleting the article. There was such a debate (and I was among those supporting deletion in view of Ennis's lack of notability) but the decision was made to keep the article. You're very welcome to Wikipedia (as is anybody else who'd care to contribute); do please get yourself an ID, if only because it's harder for most people to remember IP numbers than IDs. -- Hoary 02:06, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

POV wording

I think that using the term "fans" for Sollog's supporters is rather POV. They should be called "supporters" or "followers" instead. -- Khym Chanur 04:18, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

The usage of "fan" where it would be more usual to use words such as the ones you suggested is an idiosyncracy of Sollog and/or his supporters (if indeed any truly exist). I guess that's something else that could be explained in the article... --Rlandmann 05:46, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re: could you change this sentence

On the page now: "He operates a business known as Adoni Publishing, which sells his writing in ebook form, as well as CDs of music composed by him, and video material about him."

Could you please remove the last comma, changing the final phrase to read "as well as CDs of music composed by him and video material about him."

Better yet, strike the sentence and write: "He operates a business known as Adoni publishing selling ebooks of his writings, music CDs composed by him, and hagiographical videos."

In fact, you could probably assume that music implies CDs and leave the sentence as: "He operates a business known as Adoni publishing selling ebooks of his writings, music composed by him, and hagiographical videos."

add a link named "Usenet Psychic Wars With Wikipedia" pointing to

The above was contributed by at 04:21 GMT on 15 Dec., 2004.

Hey there -- antoher newbie to wikipedia over from slashdot. I just wanted to say I find your unbiased view particularly refreshing, and can see how hard you have all worked to maintain it. Just one suggestion --

The section entitled "Playing the odds" Is perhaps the one remaining baised section of the page. It makes a number of critical claims, and in my opinion, the title is implying that the predictions are not true -- while I agree with that, surely that counts as biased?

$0.02 04:45, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC) ChinDoGu

Deistic Claims

What are the strengths of Sollog's claims to being deity. A quick read of what was posted in the main article and elsewhere leads me to believe that Sollog is no more claiming that he is god than the rest of us, and the world at large, is god. If that is the case this isn't too kooky of a kooky religious belief - see Thelema/Wicca and other New Age religions of the sort which are relitively mainstream.

As to 'neutrality' - perhaps it is best that one admits that neutrality is a myth. We all have our perceptions on the world and being such subjective beings destroys our ability to be objective/neutral.

This shouldn't be a huge debate. Part 1 - this is the man. Part 2 - this is what the man believes. Any negitive actions on the part of the man should be clearly referenced but not gone into at great length, as those writing them probably can't obtain objectivity on the point, as to what the man believes (e.g. in his oracular powers) let the true believers write it, and the skepitics should make a brief note HG2G style, 'of course many believe this is pure bs' ... and then post links to support that point of view. 07:19, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)DrkNexus

Sollog's spree

I’ve just reverted a Sollog posting spree that ran for 22 edits, including a lovingly detailed description of Altman's sex life and a signature of "fvckyou" with each post. I was content to let him have his fun until he started personally attacking specific wikipedians and then I decided enough was enough. If anyone besides Sollog thinks I've acted inappropriately by doing this they are free to restore his edits.

John wanted to bring to our attention the following links, so much so he posted them 19 times in 22 edits. Apparently they are google posts of some prophecies of his, and I don’t know why we can’t add them to the article when it is unprotected.

I would also ask John to restrain himself and play nicely. We are willing to listen to you provided you remain calm, post in an orderly fashion, and stop insulting people. Gamaliel 09:09, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For which purpose, he might restart the medication. Well, that's just a guess; I don't know that he needs medication; after all, I don't have videocameras in his house. Erm, I missed the "lovingly detailed description of Altman's sex life". (Presumably Mr Ennis has a videocamera in the journalist's bedroom.) Normally I wouldn't be interested, but now that (somewhere in the unintended humor of those 22 edits) I, Hoary, have (MMf!) been (snort!) recognized as Altman (wahaha) -- excuse me while I suppress my laughter -- I suppose the sex life described would allegedly be my own. Gamaliel, yes, I think Wikipedia might indeed post those two Google links; they reveal the true face of sollogy. -- Hoary 09:39, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"all pro sollog posts are sollog is a lie", and "wyss is harassing sollog," claims Sollog

Just look at the history page, someone removed 22 PRO Sollog posts and then claims that person is Sollog.

  • Readers are urged to look at the posts themselves via the page history. Wyss 11:56, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Where's your PROOF?

Saying all the Sollog pro posts are Sollog is nothing but a LIE.

  • The suggestion is that they're all John P. Ennis, actually. Wyss 11:54, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You want to talk to Sollog's TOH members in almost every country in the world there's a CONTACT TOH MEMBERS in your country page at

In Sollog forums there are posts explaining how to use 'proxies' so peoples identities can be protected from hackers since wikipedia is publicly posting ip addresses of any Sollog fan or Toh member that posts here.

So due to the actions of wikipedia putting 'private' IP addresses into the public domain Sollog fans are all intentionally using proxies, for the most part. Some Sollog fans or members of TOH might be using their own IP's to post here. So for all these people to say there are no fans or members of TOH you are wrong.

Go email a Toh member in your country at and see how a real person in that country replies back to you.

How does Toh have members in most countries around the world if there are no members as you people claim.

  • Ennis asserts that having a form on a web page proves he has followers. Wyss 11:54, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There are several Sollog and Toh forums where this page is being discussed, they all come with a WARNING that wikipedia is exposing private IP addresses to harass Toh members. Hackers can do a lot with an IP address, so why is wikipedia exposing all IP addresses of Toh members that post here.

The logic of the people here is wrong, they think because someone posts here about Sollog that is new they must be Sollog.

That is dumb logic.

Members of Toh have been told to post here, to protest the wrong info and the harassing info that is being posted here. They know to use a proxy since they don't need to have a private IP address posted here.

  • Notice how Ennis slips in his use of language... Members of Toh have been told to post here... not asked, or requested, or urged... but told. Wyss 11:47, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

User: 09:52, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)i think wiki sucks

Interesting to see how the page you link to there has a forum... presumbaly for TOH members. More interesting to see that; a) it requres me to sign up and log on to even read the board )and presumbly keeps track of my IP if I do so); b) there is a whopping total of 29 memembers (for an international religous moment that ain't much); and c) there is but 20 articles. Oh, and the domain was registered on the 10th december 2004 - after things heated up here.
Interesting... makes one wonder about a few things =) WegianWarrior 11:19, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oh my. You don't think... could it be... that wiki is dealing with an attack from the Sockpuppets of TOH? Wyss 11:38, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See how wiki is posting IPs

That's why this is a proxy.

And I'm not sollog and I find it harassing that all these IP's are being attributed to Sollog. That is a lie. Again, just email a TOH member at

User: 09:53, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)stop posting IP's it's harassment

By making any edits to Wikipedia you agree to place your IP in the public domain on the history page. If you want to hide your own IP address, then you must create an account ('tis one of the reasons for doing so). If you don't like Wikipedia, don't use it. Estel (talk) 10:02, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
Well Mr-Ennis-using-, could you explain the stylistic similarities among all the "contributions" made here by sollogites? They all look the same to me, and the same as what's written in for example this incitement to avoid payment of taxes, which says in part "GOD did also place the rule of Tithe on his believers, which means believers of GOD should give 10% of any earnings to GODS TEMPLE!" (idiosyncratic orthography in the original). Incidentally, I hope you don't mind my retitling the header; now it starts to make sense. -- Hoary 10:18, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Going by a quick glance at the page history, most of Ennis' posts (which he claims were from followers worldwide) came from IP There are only two or three others, all in the US. Along with this, they seem to be uniformly signed with the same vulgar text handle (with unvarying spelling), and offer the same, long URLs with no mistakes or differences in format (never mind the identical syntax, punctuation and style). In one of these, Ennis claims this contributor is Jim Wales. Heh heh. Wyss 11:04, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
hahaha hey wyss see what a public company did when a few Toh members complained about slash dot org, you ever hear of /. Org removing an article?
  • Ennis got confused when /. routinely backed the article off its front page, then claimed the article had been removed as a result of legal pressure he'd applied. Note how he projects his own personality onto his sockpuppets. Wyss 13:08, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Toh sites say huge class action coming to wikipedia and va software the public company that runs /.Org, you'll see Sollog in court wyss since you are going to have to defend you lies. haha 12:44, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)your worst nightmare and I'm not sollog and I know who most of the people posting here are. They are real people and toh members and they are pissed at wiki and all of you clowns. Now isn't that news that /.Org folded to the threat of a class action.

  • Flattery. Wyss 13:08, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Wow! That sure is news! I'm sure it's especially news to Slashdot, who are evidently unaware that they "folded to the threat of a class action", since they still have the story up, in the same place they have all the stories they put up that day. Gosh, I bet they'll be surprised when they find out how scared they were and how they took down the story, quaking from fear of the WRATH OF SOLLOG (but of course, "taking it down" in a way that means "treating it no differently from any other story.") -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:04, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Slash Dot and Wikipedia named in Class Action

Where's the Slash Dot Org article?


Look at the edit above, see how wiki insists all posts are sollog and there are no toh members.

Wikipedia is on the way out of business, Sollog's lawyers are going after them along with a public company that rlandman conspired with to defame sollog and toh members 12:40, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)your worst nightmare

Well my post to Slashdot had to do with personality disorders and the B cluster of symptoms. Looks like we have a living breathing example -- gtoomey

Mr Ennis, old chap, if you were my "worst nightmare" the world would be a lovely place. No ozone depletion, no nuclear accidents, no melanoma, no mesothelioma, no AIDS, no Kim Jong-Il, no Karl Rove. That aside, we non-sollogites are all just dying to find out who these "lawyers" of yours are that are "going after" Wikipedia and "Slash Dot". (Is this the Twinkie charge?) -- Hoary 14:10, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sollog gets confused...

I hear that is a first, VA Software making slash dot org remove a libelous article.

Wake up Jimbo Wales a huge class action is gonna hit you real soon.

I'm not Sollog but I am a member of TOH

Remove the Sollog article or you'll be in court losing all you own. []

Comment provided by 12:46 GMT 15 Dec. 2004

What are you talking about? The article's right here: - Evil saltine 12:48, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"God" probably confused Slashdot's normal operating procedure of moving old stories off the front page to "Yesterday's news" with an actual removal. -- Cyrius| 12:53, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Maybe he can't accept that he's yesterday's news. :) 14:35, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Get off his case, he only claims to be able to see the future. This inner eye obviously clouds his vision of the past, duh. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:44, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Speaking of confusion, yesterday Ennis' wikisucks site proclaimed, SLASHDOT ORG RULES (or something in that price range). Today it reads, Slash Dot Org & Wikipedia accused of Religious Hate Crimes. I haven't yet stooped to commenting on Ennis' predictive abilities, so I won't start now. Wyss 16:32, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Under the Class action section of this article there is an un-wikified reference to TOH. What is this TOH and should it be documented somewhere on wiki?

Otherwise I think that without any sort of documentation or detail the class action section should be deleted or at least removed until papers are filed in some court somewhere real. PPI 13:25, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • This isn't the article, it's the talk page. Wyss 13:36, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It was written by "the contributor" that has continually blanked this page. It's not really worthy of mention. User:Estel (not signed in)
    • I apologize for being unclear. I was reffering to the sollog article itself, but it appears someone has already removed the part I was talking about... Problem solved. PPI
I was just wondering how to frame the link, given the somewhat disreputable apearance of the site's main page ("The 911 Warning - PROOF BUSH KNEW", "DEATH GALLERY - GROSS GROSS GROSS", "New Planet Discovered - Where Sollog Predicted", etc.) but someone's beaten me to it and just removed it. Probably the right thing, but is there any actual evidence linking to Sollog himself? PhilHibbs | talk 14:02, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • is registered to AIS, 4613 University Dr Number 311, Coral Springs, Florida 33067. This is the same registrant as,, the deathporn sites and so on. The news site uses html boilerplate similar to the others and of course the writing style and syntax problems are the same. Wyss 14:15, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've noticed someone registered (and so sabotaged my plan to reg it myself and put mirror of this article there :) ) '' .. the registrant has the same info as the one for the sites mentioned, however the last row of the address is 'Coral Springs, ST 33067' instead of 'Coral Springs, FL 33067' .. it's the divine syslog himself, or it's different person ? - JohnyDog 16:34, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Didn't someone comment earlier on some AIS websites being registered with "ST" as the state abbreviation? Inky 19:36, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My prediction has come true!

In the VfD voting for the Sollog article I made the following prediction on Dec. 9th:

  • Reluctant keep. I think the guy is a fraud, but I predict that this discussion has brought enough attention to the issue from conscientious editors to prevent it from becoming mere advertising for him in the long run. Fire Star 18:04, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Since we have many inferences here that an even tangentially accurate prediction is evidence that one is a god, and I have made at least one prediction which has since apparently come true, I hereby proclaim my divine status. From now on, we would like you to address us as Syllog. Fire Star 13:58, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What a very great waste of time, as I had thought. --Wetman 14:01, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yep. My opinion was, and still is, that a prolific spammer is not notable. Wyss 14:04, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Me too, as the VfD page will reveal. I didn't fully understand what the phrase "oxygen of publicity" meant until I discovered J. P. Ennis. -- Hoary 14:32, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)