Jump to content

User talk:Sollog/Archive 3

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

Court order to remove sollog article


Justice is swift within the SUPREME COUNCIL of TOH

There you go jimbo, your site was reviewed by the SC of TOH they found your site was libelous.

This truly horrifying contribution was anonymously made at 14:14, 15 Dec 2004 (Earthly time) by the divine

  • WARNING: the above PDF crashed Firefox when I tried to look at it. Approach with caution. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:25, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hmmm, looking at the file properties... Ennis is a Windows user... and this was done with Acrobat PDF Maker for Word... Wyss 20:36, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
A lot of PDFs crash Firefox, especially when you try to close them. PhilHibbs | talk 11:31, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • And they say BJAODN is dead… --fvw* 14:16, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)
  • That's nice. I just established the Supreme Divine Really Spiffy Court of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, which declares that Sollog is a spammer and is not God. As such, we are ordering Sollog to stop spamming his sites on Wikipedia. Pakaran (ark a pan) 14:21, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I think I have.......(*drum roll*)........the answer: Our friend Ennis needs slack. He should explore the Church of the SubGenius for his answers. He will find that Bob, indeed, loves us all.A2Kafir 15:50, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • ...one hears the sputter of melting synapses. In the self-written "order", Ennis also asks for a million dollars from Wales. Wyss 14:24, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • O mighty Ennis, could you please summarize the judgement for us trembling mortals? (But make the summary really, really short. Three lines or fewer, OK? And go easy on the capitalization.) -- Hoary 14:29, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • He's written a decree, replete with cheesy, cloned TOH logos, "ordering" wiki to delete the page and pay him a million dollars for offending his sockpuppets. Wyss 14:33, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Don't feed the trolls. Stop wasting your time on this nutjob. Ignore him until (if!) he says anything that could be taken as relevant to the article. I won't start holding my breath now, mind you. You lot are just as bad in spamming the talk page. Wikipedia is not your private mock and ridicule forum any more than it's Sollog's press kit. We know the guy is stark ravingly mad. You don't need to confirm it every time he opens his mouth (if that is indeed the orifice his remarks originate from). If you are all really having far too good a time to stop, take it to another page or something. Talk pages are supposed to help us improve the article. I fail to see how any of this is helping. Oh, and just to really confirm I'm not a Sollog sockpuppet: I am Sollog. 14:46, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment The irony is, Ennis himself originated the article and wiki's editing process subsequently produced content he didn't want mirrored on hundreds of encyclopedia sites around the world. If he had refrained from the vandalism and made a polite request to delete the page, saying he had genuinely misunderstood wiki policy about self-promotion and advertising, the page likely would have been removed with little fuss. As it is now, the page will probably remain as long as there are wiki mirrors to carry it. Wyss 15:06, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I would like to start a poll: Should the lowly Wikipedia community, as a sign of repentance, bestow a lifetime honorary BJAODN membership onto Mr Ennis AKA God? Please vote below "yes", "yes, and decorated with ad-hoc invented law court insignia", or "yes, and decorated with pornographic websites and whois queries". Thank you. Kosebamse 16:33, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Oh man you made my day. Really! Citing my message on slashdot I wrote with so much love to Sollog (pronounce So Long, if no one made this pun yet) to discredit him as much as I can is like having a great massage: I can sleep in peace tonight. More seriously, I wonder if it is legal to post a phone number without the permission of the owner. I won't put any website here, but if I want to call Mr. Walles, I think I might have his (hint: TOH). You guys have any idea if it could be possible to have a REAL court order against TOH for this? Poltras 22:00, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
      • By the way, fear the 1law. Look at the mailto: adress and you see 1ao. Damn he truly possess a lot of things. I have another question too: is TOH really registered as a religion (read sect... we're far from Amish)? If so, how can I make mine and get my god to beat Sollog? My God would be much cooler: a killer rabbit... Who's with me? Poltras 22:15, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • .... Man. You know, when I posted yesterday asking for more information about which legal body in which jurisdiction had supposedly issued an order to remove all Sollog-y content from Wikipedia, I only narrowly resisted a snarky comment about "Court orders originating in the sovereign nation of Sollogia does not count." Now it looks like, except for the name "Sollogia", I was correct. Maybe I'm a better prophet than Sollog, hey? -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:29, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • This still isn't as bad as Mr. Treason threatening to file treason charges against me in New Jersey state court. Well, maybe not. -- Cyrius| 20:33, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • It's interesting that J.P.Ennis doesn't seem to quite know whom he is suing. The above linked PDF refers to a "Wikipedia Foundation" four times. Pakaran (ark a pan) 20:44, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, now the gig is up. We're just gona have to remove the article, aren't we ;) ? -- Ld 21:58, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's all fun and games until someone gets hurt

I can understand all the sarcastic remarks and the sheer entertainment value of this topic for some readers. Heck, I never imagined it was possible to abuse a PDF as I have just seen done.

I can also sympathize with the "don't feed the trolls" remark above.

Were it not for extenuating circumstances, I would see this person's attack on Wikipedia as kind of par for the course, and defer to the mechanisms that are already at work here to deal with it.

But the extremely personal attack on the "sucks" web site (I won't link to it) against Jimbo Wales and his family should not be allowed to stand. Another user here has made a pretty good case that perhaps this article should not even link to the aforementioned site. I'm not sure if anything else can be done by an individual editor, other than make an offer to donate to a legal fund dedicated to defending against this personal attack should Jimbo choose to set one up.

In the meantime, this article can go a long ways towards exposing this person for what he is, and I congratulate the experienced Wikipedia editors who have tried to make lemonade out of a lemon under these circumstances.

Good luck.

DV 15:16, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • I just want to point out that all of these silly games of name calling, deifying, court orders and jesterlike tom foolery go against all of the laws that members of TOH are supposed to follow. The biggest mistake I see in Sollog worship is stating that they following the 10 commandments, along with the rest of God's law as written by moses (and the book of leviticus I assume). If they do believe what is written in the Torah, they will see that they are all going to a very bad place, and they will also see that they are messing with a very vengeful God (this isn't the forgiving God that Jesus taught about, this is the God that killed first born sons, and inflicted the perfect with boils and famine). I am not religious at all, I just think its amusing that Sollog would affiliate himself with a God that will, if he exists, destroy him slowly for mocking him. --Slung 17:07, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I had added the following comment just before the cutoff and archiving, so I don't know if it was of no interest, or just had bad timing. On the theory it might raise a couple of interesting aspects that are still not well covered, I've followed the suggestion of copying it over (with minor changes):

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... 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. (Or does that mean I have a sick sense of humor?)
  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)

Shanen 01:17, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Silly idea

Maybe we should nominate this to be a featured article, along with Nostradamus and others. Ennis would go nuts. But it might be more trouble than it's worth.A2Kafir 15:59, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • I appreciate the temptation to do that, but he doesn't seem notable to me. Wyss 16:14, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'd shoot that down just on the ground that it would be advertising for Sollog. We can do better things with our FAs. That he has an article here is one thing (and he should actually be honored, but I can see why he disagrees :-) but let's not puff this windbag up even more than he himself already has. He's universally derided as a delusional monomaniac with an extremely unpleasant demeanor, but aside from himself nobody thinks he's actually important or anything. Not too many centuries ago, this wacko would have been filed away under "harmful to the community, do not suffer a God to live". In these enlightened times, we no longer ostracize people just for being abrasive, abusive, self-aggrandizing kooks who make a living begging for whatever scraps society's overhead throws at them, but that doesn't mean we should plaster them on front pages of popular websites either. 16:18, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well said. It was just a dumb idea I had. But, by the will of Sollog, I have come to the decision that it isn't a good one.......A2Kafir 16:55, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Skepdic link

I've removed the link to The Skeptic's Dictionary (http://www.skepdic.com/). It's a great site, but unless I'm missing something, it has nothing about Sollog. The alphabetical index has no entry for Sollog, Temple of Hayah, TOH, or John P. Ennis. Using the search function for any of these names turns up what appear to be three passing references on a Brazilian edition of the site; although I don't read Portuguese, nothing there looks like it's worth linking to. (The article on Nostradamus at http://www.skepdic.com/brazil/nostradamus.html contains a link to http://skepdic.com/sollog.html but there's no page there. Perhaps Sollog's legal threats succeeded in intimidating the site owner into removing an article.) Finally, the entry concerning oracles refers to the general tactic of making vague predictions to increase the chance of a hit, but we've covered that in the article. JamesMLane 17:33, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • I put it back, because it works for me when I click on it (it's all about Sollog). Wyss 17:44, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hmm... there may have been a duplicate of a generic link to skepdic, which you removed... anyway whatever we both did, it seems to be ok now. Sorry if I caused any confusion. Wyss 17:47, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I deleted the link to The Skeptic's Dictionary, but what you've inserted is a link to Skeptic News. I don't know whether there's any relationship between the sites. At any rate, I have no problem with the Skeptic News link, which is indeed, as described in the article, a debunking of Sollog's alleged shuttle disaster prediction. JamesMLane 18:01, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The Skepdic article that peeves Ennis so much was removed along with the whole personalities section. Perhaps Carroll couldn't stand all the kook email in his inbox. Anyway, it *is* available on Usenet. So if you want to see what provoked a previous meltdown, read this [1].

Gammy's revision

I'm on a WikiBreak, I'm not editing here, really I'm not... I just wanted to remark that Gamaliel's refactoring of the alt.usenet.kooks stuff into the predictions section is brilliant. I should have thought of that, it fits like a glove. JRM 20:46, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)

PS. maybe Mark should refactor the talk page again. :-) At the very least we could consider archiving some old stuff, as it's getting very long. JRM 20:46, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)

PPS. Rlandmann, you put this on Slashdot?! Argh. I don't know whether it reflects well or badly on Wikipedia... hmm. :-) JRM 20:46, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)

PPPS. I wasn't here. JRM 20:46, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)

Re "refactoring": It's a major undertaking. Clearly lots of stuff could simply be removed from the live talk page: mocking Ennis is not particularly new or helpful when it comes to improving the article itself. At the very least, we could archive the current page somewhere, since it's already 159kB in size. Is there a standard procedure for that? There is already a page Talk:Sollog/archive1 from before the last major refactoring. Would someone care to do that? Like JRM, I'm taking a break from actively editing here, at least until the slashdotting is over. --MarkSweep 21:04, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. And now I'm really off. :-) JRM 21:08, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)
I'm off too! Wyss 21:40, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Be careful

It turns out that Sollog has a serious criminal record, including convictions for assault (see the new "Criminal Record" section of the article). I think we need to be careful here - if individuals get threats from him, I suggest that it should be reported to the police. -- ChrisO 21:23, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm glad that section was finally added - we should not give in to his threats. - Ld 21:28, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

NPoV. Wyss 21:37, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What are our sources for the record? Make sure we get it right....A2Kafir 22:33, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Philly City Paper: http://www.citypaper.net/articles/050996/article016.shtml . -- ChrisO 22:42, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The pro-Sollog types keep referring to a federal court case "96CV 1499", which supposedly disproves all the claims about his criminal record. Anyone know how to dig that up, if it exists? --Carnildo 23:13, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It's in the style of a federal district court docket number for a civil case. Even though it's not a criminal case, the file might have information about a litigant's criminal record. The trouble is that every district in the country probably had a civil case number 1499 filed in 1996. You'd have to know which district it was. Then you could go to the office of the Clerk of the Court and ask to examine the file. (There are services that will do this for a fee.) It's probably old enough that the clerk would have to pull it from storage, and if the storage is off-site you might be told to come back in a few days. JamesMLane 00:39, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks JML. I was hoping something would be available on Lexis, but I guess that was wishful thinking. Gamaliel 00:52, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
A quick Google search indicates that it's probably the Eastern Pennsylvania district. Searching that site's archives for 1996 gives no sign of the case. There might be something on PACER -- it's noted as going back to 1990 -- but I didn't check. --Carnildo 01:31, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
While the above info is gleaned from an early Altman article all the facts are false. The US government did its best to arrest and harass Sollog in 1995. He was detained over the OK City bombing and he was arrested for threatening the US President. Now you need to present the outcome of all that legal activity.

1. Ennis was not wanted in AZ and he produced a fax from discovery he got when he sued over the false arrest. The fax is an exhibit in case 96CV 1499 and is directly mentioned in the complaint.

2. The Secret Service arrest was dismissed, but Ennis put the document from the case into 1499 that he admitted he wrote, said document warned Clinton to stay away from Jackson Holy WY or a plane crash would occur. In the summer of 1996 a presidental support plane did crash.

3. The DUI was overturned on several points.

In summary the AZ warrant was bogus, the SS arrest was dismissed and all you have now is a 20 year old DUI that was overturned.

Best to leave out the arrest bs since it is not what Sollog is known for.

He's a famous psychic and founder of a religious movement.

Let's see Bush and Cheney both have DUI's that weren't over turned.

Is that info on their pages?


(posted by

See George W. Bush#Personal life, service, and education (seventh paragraph); Dick Cheney#Education (second paragraph). Both articles have had this information since before the Sollog article was even created. JamesMLane 00:58, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That, and Bush/Cheney to my knowledge have not proclaimed themeselves deities. Crimes that deities have committed should be public knowledge. And remember children, sign your name to the things that you write! --Iosif 01:06, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Refactoring again

This page is now clearly too long and needs another refactoring. Since it's now 162 kb long, that's not a trivial task. The last refactoring was substantially assisted by one of the anon contributors posting a list of what he saw as issues that still needed addressing. As a prelude to refactoring, then, I'm asking what (if anything) do people here feel we still need to cover to improve the article? --Rlandmann 23:08, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Right now the article suggests that Sollog is very much opposed to barcodes and any other sort of numerical code in any way representing or being associated with him or his ideas. It states plainly that Sollog is so opposed to numerical codes that he has even refused to use the ISBN codes on his books. However, the article also says that Sollog is associated with several websites and much of his work is distrubted online. These two views seem to be contradictory. As everyone knows, every website is assoicated with a numerical code (IP address). The article should address this inconsistency. Acaides 23:40, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Furthermore, it's common knowledge that everyone's physical place of being resides on some sort of a longitudinal and latitudinal intersection; a precise number that can be easily tracked by the beast. We're fucked. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 23:51, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • But do IP addresses represent the number 666? See Conspiracy theory#Barcodes for more on this odd belief. -- ChrisO 00:06, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Do barcodes or ISBN lables really represent the number 666? Acaides 20:20, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • There are two "barcode conspiracies". One is that ISBN codes (and possibly other barcodes) are related to the Mark of the Beast. The other is that the barcodes on the backs of street signs are secret instructions for the upcoming takeover of the United States by UN forces. It's up to you to decide which, if either, you feel is correct. --Carnildo 20:39, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • This is all very interesting, but it dosent resolve the glaring contradiction of rejecting barcodes because they use numbers (in some satanic way) while simultaneously embracing a system based entirely upon numerical representation of information(which could just as easily be satanic). Acaides 02:28, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Let's declare victory and go home

"I AM NOT a sock puppet! I am your GOD!! Bow before me or be sued!!
And there are no infidel tanks in Baghdad! Never! The infidels are being roasted as we speak!

I note that of 22.40 UTC, Dec. 15, there have been over 180 edits to this article since its protected status was revoked on Dec. 10. As stated in the VfD discussion, this is pretty much what I and several others feared would happen: that Sollog and his "followers" would use it as an excuse to conduct a flamewar/harassment campaign on Wikipedia. The article needs to be protected again, indefinitely.

Conducting battle with Sollog is like poking a puff adder with a stick: it's fun at first, but it quickly devolves into a pointless waste of time and energy. Let Sollog and his Holy (Wholly?) Sock Puppet Army post all the nonsense and abuse that they like for a time on this talk page (the administrators can remove anything too abusive). My prediction is that if they meet with little or no further response, they will eventually wander off and find more promising targets for their spleen. I can understand the reluctance in protecting an article, but I cannot see a realistic alternative here. This was fun for awhile, but it's time to turn to more worthy subjects.

PS: Mom says to stop playing with that damned snake and get your butt home. Dinner's ready.

PPS: None of the above should be interpreted as my dismissing the seriousness of any threats, stalking or other forms of personal intimidation or assault that Sollog may be guilty of. If indeed this has happened, I absolutely agree with ChrisO-- report it to the police immediately! Edeans 23:54, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Victory" is when an article is perfect, and no longer edited because no-one can see a way of improving it. It is not achieved when we decide that the article looks "good enough for a topic the likes of Sollog" and lock it down indefinitely. Some people, of their own free will, decide to devote time and effort to it. You'll notice that a good deal of those 180 edits were by legitimate contributors improving the article. We should not compromise on our standards and policies. Not for Sollog, not for anyone. You are free to turn to more worthy subjects. Nobody's forcing you to watch this. If Sollog threatens the Wikipedia in any meaningful way (see above), we should just come down on him like a ton of bricks, not adapt the wiki to his behaviour to be "realistic". I can be very real if I want to. :-) 00:14, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
PS. Something has gone horribly wrong in archiving this. It's now 507 KB long and seems to contain duplicates. Pasted to the wrong page? 00:14, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
As I see it, there are still two things that need to be checked out: the 96CV 1499 court case, and what happened with the Philadeplhia DUI, assault, etc. case. --Carnildo 01:33, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I wouldn't put too much emphasis on checking out the "96 CV 1499" case. What one of the TOH posts said about it was: "1. Ennis was not wanted in AZ and he produced a fax from discovery he got when he sued over the false arrest. The fax is an exhibit in case 96CV 1499 and is directly mentioned in the complaint." My inferences are: (1) The reference is to a paper Ennis submitted, not to a judicial decision, so it's very unlikely that a copy would be available anywhere online (I don't think any court scans the thousands of pages of litigant submissions to put them online). (2) Even if you went to the Clerk's office and saw a dead-tree copy, you would be looking at a paper submitted by Ennis, apparently consisting of a photocopy of a fax from an unspecified person. Fine, it's "directly mentioned in the complaint", but a lot of outright balderdash gets directly mentioned in complaints. An individual doesn't give any special status to a document of unknown provenance by attaching it to or mentioning it in a complaint. Looking at the paper in the court files wouldn't answer the question whether Ennis himself had forged it shortly before filing it. If someone wants us to modify the paragraph about Arizona, it would be useful to identify what's allegedly wrong, what the truth of the matter is, and what source provided the facts and the fax (Arizona State Police or whatever). JamesMLane 01:50, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Is there anyone here with access to something like lexus nexus that can look up the court case? A simple google of the case brings up nothing but "sollog" owned links. — Slung 02:44, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hello Slung. I searched Lexis Nexus for 'Sollog' and '96 CV 1499' and "John P Ennis", firstly only in the state of Pennsylvania. Only result was for a graphic image of a guy named "Adam Sollog." Then I searched news sources in the NE in general, and the only thing I get is "John P. Ennis, doing business as Ennis Flower Shoppe,104 Argonne Drive, Syracuse, by the State Tax Commissionn $2,279." I searched Google for the court case and all I get is "Plaintiff's dissatisfaction with the menu at the Central New Mexico Correctional Facility is not sufficient to support his Eighth Amendment claim." I also searched the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania's online database. There is a guy named "John P. Ennis" who went to court in 1996 and 1990. click here to see. That's all I can offer in just a few minutes. --Alterego 03:22, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The 1990 case appears to be a lawsuit against Ennis stemming from the DUI where he lost by not showing up in court. --Carnildo 05:11, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I couldn't find anything under that docket(?) number on http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/ – note that the numbers there are typically given in the format "96-CV-1499". There are two scanned pages of a criminal complaint against Ennis listed here on Ennis's own site; however, this case does not appear to be directly related, it's a criminal complaint against Ennis for making threats against the president. --MarkSweep 03:50, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
A google search on 96CV 1499 brings up Ennis links where he claims all sorts of fascinating things are part of that filing, but mainly what I'm interested in is whether or not the case existed in the first place. --Carnildo 05:11, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This might prove an interesting point of departure: http://www.citypaper.net/articles/050996/article016.shtml Sjc 20:04, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This guy is hilarious

There really needs to be some kind of Andy Kauffman award that Sollog can win.

Or am I not supposed to tell people that I know that it is a very elaborate and hilarious joke because I'd be ruining it for others? Micah 01:07, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You know, I've been wondering myself if we've all been had by a Drunken Master of Troll-Style Kung-Fu. However, trolls generally operate asymmetrically, by generating as much controversy with as little effort as possible: a few sweeping generalizations here, a few heretic remarks there, occasionally fanning the flames, etc. But the stubborn persistence of this guy combined with his sheer inability to comprehend that there is a diversity of views out there tells me that he's no troll. During a recent spate of activity, he must have driven from his house to a local Kinko's and then to a Starbucks to do his sockpuppetry; he has spend a fair amount of time, effort, and money posting from different IPs to both WP and Slashdot, setting up a hate site, even acquiring domains like "sollogsucks.com" before anyone else could use them against him, etc. Would an ordinary troll go to such lengths? The high art of trolling is to use your trolling powers subtly, so that people get sucked into a flamewar without ever realizing they've been trolled. This guy is definitely not lazy, and he has the subtlety of an enraged two-year-old. --MarkSweep 05:39, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think he has been up to his own thing for a while, but saw Wikipedia as a way to draw a lot of attention to his sites. When you sit down and look at his books/movies, they are hollow shells, not the rantings of an authentic nut. I think this guy is really funny, and he is good at getting people going. If the new entry about his convictions are true, then I guess it could be the real deal, but all of this seems far too good to be true.Micah 03:22, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I doubt he's a troll of any sort. The reason he doesn't sound like most ranting nuts is because most ranting nuts suffer from schizophrenia, which tends to produce a very distinctive writing style; see timecube.com for a classic example. Further:
  1. John P. Ennis does seem to be his legal name - a number of court documents refer to him by it.
  2. Someone trolling or going for attention usually won't risk going to prison for assaulting a police officer; the Philadelphia court circus he put on in 1996 was a virtual guarentee of that happening.
  3. Getting the personal attention of the Secret Service for threatening the President is a Bad Thing. Most people try to avoid it.
--Carnildo 05:08, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Move

I made the decision to move the article. It was clearly biased against this man. I find that continuously referring to him by a pseudonym he doesn't wish to be called is very POV, and have also changed most references of Sollog to Ennis. --Alterego 04:19, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think the article was biased against him, but I like a lot of your changes (without having examined all of them). Ennis, or close imitations thereof, are most insistent that he should be called "Sollog", so I'm puzzled by your rationale for retitling the article. (And, while I don't dispute your right to retitle it, I'm surprised that you didn't first suggest it and ask for comments.) There are some good grounds for retitling it, but if it's retitled then I wonder why "Patrick" is spelled out; he seems to be referred to as John P. Ennis much more often. -- Hoary 04:30, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, Hoary. I wanted to see a swift turnaround in the article so I went ahead and made a few choices. I think the quality has improved greatly. If someone else accords that 'John P. Ennis' is a better title, I invite them to go ahead and make the move. I am, though, against having the main article titled Sollog. --Alterego 04:36, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Why are you against the article being named Sollog? That is the name under which he is most famous. As Hoary pointed out, Sollog is not a "pseudonym he doesn't wish to be called". (By the way, good recent work on the article!) --Dbenbenn 04:56, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Since Sollog is the name by which this person is most famous, it's the one that's most consistent with our naming policies. cf Ringo Starr, Malcolm X, Madonna, Mata Hari and many many more I'm sure... I strongly feel that the article should be moved back. Furthermore, as others have pointed out, it's Ennis' original name that the purported Sollog followers find offensive - "they" insist that he be referred to as Sollog. --Rlandmann 05:12, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am not going to stand my ground in the face of several wikipedians. Majority rules when it comes to my peers! Suffice it to say, though, that I am highly skeptical and worried about this article. I have seen that users have been handing out barnstars congratulating its quality, when the state it was in was a completely biased joke. Intended to make this man look like a joke. It needs to be written in a method that allows readers to make up their own minds without making suggestions. The controversy is amplified by the fact that Wikipedia is now involved, and I think we need to step as far away from it as possible. --Alterego 05:28, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't think that the article was intended to make Ennis look like a joke. I do, however, regard him as a joke, though a tedious one. (I voted to delete the article on the grounds of the lack of notability of its subject matter. He's merely spammed himself into minor notoriety.) My reason for having the article titled (some form of) "Ennis" rather than "Sollog" is that the sollogites, or "fans" (as they have termed themselves) of "Sollog" --- or (judging by idiolect, etc.) more likely just Ennis himself -- have claimed that "Sollog" has various other noms de guerre. It seems odd to talk of pseudonyms of a pseudonym, better to have the article (if it must exist at all) under "Ellis" and have "Sollog" point to it. Incidentally, this talk of "legal name" at the top reminds me: I'm not familiar with US law about names, but wouldn't an actual (as opposed to merely imagined) change of legal name be a matter of public record? -- Hoary 05:48, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
A bit of poking around.....it might be that the act of changing your name may be public record, but not the actual new name. --Alterego 05:56, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have no problem with the main title of the article either way. If there is a consensus to move it back, so be it. I've tried to look for a precedent of someone who has used multiple aliases or who has used aliases for deceptive purposes, but then realized that this doesn't apply here: we have no evidence that the name "Sollog" is used in a deceptive manner, and it appears to be the most widely used of the many alises that Ennis has allegedly employed. I don't quite agree with Alterego's assessment of the previous state of the article (Alterego's contributions are clearly a welcome improvement, this is not meant as a criticism): do we have an obligation to make someone appear more serious than he does himself? I'm quite aware that my views are generally skeptical, but many of Sollog's claim would appear dubious to any reasonable person. Do we then have an obligation to hide deficiencies and treat them as more serious than they actually are? If Ennis makes himself look like a joke to a reasonable person, should we pretend otherwise? I don't think we can easily skirt the issue. --MarkSweep 05:53, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Rlandmann, I want to also point out that when you introduced him to Slashdot, you did it with his real name first: "John Patrick Ennis, whose nutty predictions as Sollog (Son of Light, Light of God) are familiar to many usenetters, may have bitten off more than he could chew when he picked Wikipedia as his latest vehicle for spamvertising". --Alterego 05:51, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Indeed, but this is not Slashdot. Different choice of words for different purposes, circumstances, and audience. --Rlandmann 07:17, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The article should be called Sollog. A) He's famous (to whatever degree he has fame) under that name; B) He seems to reject the use of his given name, so I think that it could be seen as POV to call him that. Everyking 06:36, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Some possible objection (I'm not endorsing these, just bringing them up for discussion): The current article talks about "legal problems" – those are the problems of John P. Ennis, not of his Sollog persona. If this is an article about Ennis, the inclusion of Ennis's legal problems seems more on topic. Re (B), he also rejects a lot of other views and opinions, yet despite his efforts they are included in the article. Ennis might disagree, but it's not slanderous to call someone by their actual name, is it? --MarkSweep 06:50, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am strongly against this move. John P. Ellis is some insignificant Philadelphian. Sollog is how he is known and why he is notable. I'm with Rlandmann: Mark Twain, not Samuel Clemens, Ringo Starr, not Richard Starkey, etc. Gamaliel 07:28, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

With apologies to our dear W.S. of famous memory:

What's Sollog? It is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O! Be some other name:
What's in a name? That which we call tripe
By any other name would stink as strong;
So Sollog would, were he not Sollog call'd.

Edeans 08:02, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comments on some issues above:
  • Article name: It should be the name by which the subject is most widely known -- here, "Sollog". Redirects at John P. Ennis and John Patrick Ennis. Disambiguation at Fruitcake.
  • Ennis name change(s): Whether or not he got a court order changing his name, and whether or not he used still other names, wouldn't affect the foregoing rule. (Incidentally, in most U.S. jurisdictions a formal name-change procedure is available but not required. You can just start using a new name if you aren't using it for deceptive purposes. Of course, you might have trouble with things like cashing checks payable to your new name.)
  • Ennis's legal problems and personal preferences: These also don't affect the naming conventions. Legal issues were about this one person, even though in different contexts he's used different names, so they all go in the one article. William Sydney Porter's conviction for embezzlement is noted in the O. Henry article. The bio subject's preferences are immaterial. Our primary duty is to our readers. We put the article where they're most likely to look for it.
  • Bias: People skeptical of Sollog have been contributing. The TOH-initiated changes have been so absurd as to constitute vandalism. When all the people who are actually editing are on one side, some bias naturally results. Alas, I haven't seen evidence that anyone from TOH is willing to participate in constructive editing. I don't think the article was "a joke" before, however.
  • Deletion: Yes, maintaining the article has been a hassle, but it may turn out to be worth the effort if the big splash on Slashdot brings in even one new steady Wikipedian.
JamesMLane 07:22, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've taken a break, but as someone who has come to know something about this Sollog character and participated in these discussions, I have some comments. I think the article (if it is kept at all) should be named Sollog, with a redirect from John P Ennis. This individual is a prolific spammer with cold reading, deathporn, auction and personal "art" sites of little or no documented notability. He has a somewhat serious criminal record (whatever the details) and a long history of sockpuppetry, sysop bans, hollow legal threats and vandalism. He has been a subject of ridicule on the Internet for years. I still believe a wiki article was never justified, but if there must be an article it should clearly reflect these aspects of his background. Finally, as for the barnstars, I gave these out to a few people not for a completed article, but for the worthy efforts they made and as tokens of the "wiki rapport" we'd developed. I gave one to Wales for other, similarly appropriate reasons. Don't fuck with my barnstars! :) Thank you all, and please... keep up the wonderful work you're doing, not only on this sad story, but on our beloved wiki! Wyss 09:39, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have been following this discussion since the Slashdot posting and I have to agree that the article should be named Sollog. As much as I would love to see the fits the sockpuppets would throw by naming it John P. Ennis it doesn't make sense. Those few that do know him know him as Sollog, and this is the, for lack of a better word, character that the article is truly based on. DasAlbatross 14:31, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It seems that most people are for the article title "Sollog". I'm going to move it back though I'll wait a while in case anyone else wants to register their opinion here. Gamaliel 21:53, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


  • I do, however, regard him as a joke,
  • John P. Ellis is some insignificant Philadelphian.
  • "I still believe a wiki article was never justified"

There have been a few level-headed posts here but these do not help. I would appreciate if any wikipedians having a conflict of interest would not participate in the situation as you are only adding POV. --Alterego 15:19, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If Alterego believes this writer has a conflict of interest, he's cordially invited to describe it plainly. Wyss 15:56, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I simply dug through the comments and grabbed the few things that had stuck out at me. This means that your words were speaking for themselves. I would not be concerned about someone having a bias against someone if it weren't the case that this article was very biased yesterday, and still is. And the fact that there were virtual pats on the back being passed around. And the fact that there are probably 50-100 wikipedians with this article on their watchlist, and even with the frequent edits no one was taking the time to remove the most painful and glaring POV from it. The first time I read it I nearly shit my pants. The tone of "fans," the playfulness of "fallen afoul of the law," completely unfounded claims such as him suing his attorney (still haven't seen a cite for that one), 'putative' following, as if Wikipedia has some vested interest in that claim; complete sections turned straight away against him. I made an attempt to clean this article up by giving it an hour of my life. I don't think anyone who is on this talk page and is ragging him needs to be helping with the article right now. It is a conflict of interest, especially considering the publicity and self-referrential nature. --Alterego 16:51, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
(Sorry to interject, Gamaliel.) Alterego, I'd like to respond to a few of your points above.
  1. "fans". It seems that Sollog's followers themselves [sic] use the word "fans". There's nothing wrong with followers, but fans isn't just a POV derogation as you seem to think.
  2. I think "fallen afoul of the law" was more neutral than "broken the law". The first doesn't imply he actually committed a crime, merely that he was on the business end of legal proceedings.
  3. "suing his attorney". See [2], which is referenced one sentence later in the article. It actually only says he "threatened [his defence attorney] with a lawsuit".
--Dbenbenn 17:27, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've said plenty of unflattering things about Sollog. "John P. Ellis is some insignificant Philadelphian." is not one of them, it's a plain statement of fact. Ellis is insignificant, as are both you and I, when it comes to encyclopedic notability. Sollog is what is significant about Ellis, which was the point I was clearly making. This is the talk page, not the article, and no one is served if we all hide our dislike and pretend it doesn't exist. We do dislike him, and why shouldn't we? For one thing, he's insulted most of us personally; to me he threatened to "stick my Doc Martens up your faggot ass" or something equally charming like that. But, as all good wikipedians, our duty is to put aside our POV and work on an article, not to pretend we never had a POV in the first place so we have a neat and tidy talk page. Have we failed to present a fully NPOV article? Yes, in places, we have, which is why editors with a fresh perspective like you are useful to this article. What is not useful is an editor telling us we aren't smiling enough when we're being insulted by a lunatic pornorgrapher who thinks he's God. Gamaliel 16:56, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, Gamaliel - I'd like to second every one of the thoughts in that remark.
I too will freely admit that on occasions, the personal feelings that most of us have developed towards Ennis (most particularly after his phone and web attacks on our beloved God-King) have bled through into the article. Thanks, Alterego, for showing us POV that our collective blindspots have hidden from us.
At the same time, while I'm sure you didn't mean to insult any of us, I for one feel a bit miffed that you'd dismiss our efforts here as "a joke" when I think that a number of wikipedians have fought very hard to bite our tongues (fingers?) in the article and preserve neutrality. You can probably get a sense of that by comparing our comments on this talk page (and elsewhere) to what actually went into the article itself. I think that each one of us has caught and reverted something POV by one of our colleagues over the past ten days.
Can it be further NPOVed? Perhaps, although the reactions that the article has generated from outside commentators on Slashdot and usenet tend towards suggesting that Ennis' treatment has been more than fair. IMHO, it's important to keep in mind that an over-zealous approach to NPOV can lead to distortions of its own. Like the other "first wave" editors, though, I'm more than willing to step back now and let fresh eyes look it over. --Rlandmann 00:03, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Alterego is pasting quotes from a talk page, out of context, as tacit examples of conflict of interest, without specifying what that conflict of interest might be. This writer, aside from trying to make technical corrections to a couple of URLs, has had nothing to do with the writing of the article but did hours of research and contributed to its discussion on these pages. I'd politely suggest that Alterego "needs" to keep in mind that the article is the unfinished artifact of a vandalism war conducted by a known spammer with a criminal record who attempted to use wikipedia as an advertising platform for cold reading and deathporn. That's not PoV, that's documented fact. Regarding any "virtual backpatting", it's really none of Alterego's business if wikipedians decide to say nice things to each other from time to time. Wyss 17:20, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I want to note that many of the problems Alterego noted and corrected are from the "Criminal history" section. If I read the edit history correctly, this section was new and only in the article for four hours when he started making his edits. I don't think the problems of this new section should be held against all of us collectively as some of the people Alterego is criticizing hadn't even read the section before it was edited by him. Gamaliel 17:39, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hello. I am really not interested in arguing with each one of you, and you are free to refute my points. It doesn't change the bigger picture. A Wikipedia user who has edited this article posted it to Slashdot, and freely expressed his opinion concerning Ennis. This invited thousands of people here to edit it, several of them commenting and ridiculing him on this talk page. As a matter of fact, this talk page is full of negative comments towards Ennis from Wikipedia users. Some of these Wikipedia users are still in active dialog with Ennis, who is actively trying to mold the article towards his POV. In result, Wikipedians crafted sections of the article intended to make Ennis look bad. Perhaps, though, it wasn't an intention (as was claimed above). If that is the case then those sections were born of unconscious bias against him. If you happpen to be one of the users who the picture I just painted applys to, I am really not interested in arguing with you specifically. I am simply here pointing out the fact that this article is a joke. It doesn't need to be deleted, but certainly rewriting it from it's state at Jimbo's last edit wouldn't be a bad idea. Removing biased words and phrases out of statements, paragraphs, and sections written from the point of view of that bias does not completely remove the tone. I'm really tired of talking about this, and I hope one of you is able to take a step back from your microscope and see this for the circus it is. --Alterego 19:52, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes it is a joke. I can see Sollog emailing the article to major media starting to use Wikipedia as a source saying WTF are doing using Wikipedia. Look at this article. This article makes Wiki look very bad. Mediadog 02:02, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
(Some observers would assert that Mediadog is John P. Ennis) Wyss 05:39, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
this article is a joke... er... wait a sec, isn't that the sort of language you cited above as indicative of bias and conflict of interest? Wyss 20:45, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Like I sayd, Wyss, I am not interested in arguing petty specifics with you. --Alterego 20:52, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Ok. If the specifics are so petty and uninteresting to you, then I assume I can similarly interpret any remarks you based on them. Thanks. Wyss 21:08, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Did we collectively go a bit overboard in some places in the article? Yes. Should that bias be corrected? Yes. Let's see, someone posts a long section and four hours later another editor corrects it and makes it more NPOV. That doesn't sound like a joke, that sounds like wikipedia functioning exactly as intended.

If you are not interested in arguing about this, why are you posting here at all? The talk page is to discuss how to improve the article, not for you to lecture everyone and congratulate yourself on your neutrality. Gamaliel 21:45, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Folks, please. Alterego's contributions to the article have all been useful, and it's good that someone with a fresh perspective has decided to join in. Of course many people on this talk page are biased, partly because Ennis decided early on to make this personal and has singled out several editors for insults and ad hominem attacks; the remarks about JW's family are particularly revolting. Still, we all have to assume good faith. The people who edited the article before Alterego arrived were doing their best to work on it in the face of escalating vandalism. Alterego, you should allow for the possibility that each one of the editors is a reasonable person, unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, and will eventually realize which claims are too POV, perhaps after a cooling-down period. The collective nerves are already inflamed, and saying things like "this article was a joke" is probably not helpful, though I too will assume that you're acting in good faith and that you're probably right. But don't you think your latest remarks could indicate that you're getting a bit stressed out yourself? Gamaliel is right: if you don't want to argue specifics, what else is there to argue about? I suggest we all take a deap breath, count to 2048, and then continue working on improving the article. --MarkSweep 22:13, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There are three quotations at the top of this section. I don't believe I said the second, but I pretty much agree with it. I'm not sure that the third is in my words, but I've said much the same thing and it may well me a quotation from me. (More specifically, I don't think that minor notoriety via spamming, threats, etc., justifies a Wikipedia article.) And it was certainly I who said the first of the three. Yes, the "Sollog" persona is (to me) a joke. Yet the claims made for "Sollog" have never caused me to laugh; I've seldom even smiled. There are, of course, different meanings of "joke". An extreme illustration: I suspect that, if asked, the writers of the article North Korea would say that the use of "Democratic" and "People's" in the name "DPRK" is a joke -- yet they have created a good article. (Meanwhile, Ennis isn't a joke; he's just rather sad. Or so I tentatively infer.) So while I take no offense at criticism (or even condemnation) of my statements in this discussion area (not in the article), I'm not the slightest bit apologetic about them. I've never thought that I should have the last word on "Sollog" or attempted to do this; I don't think I've ever felt or expressed hostility to anybody who'd care to present "Sollog" in a better light via reasonable argument or explanation (as opposed to exclamations), and I have no conflict of interest here: all in all I see no reason why I shouldn't participate. As it happens, I'm moving out of arguments on the non-issue of "Sollog", but this is simply because (a) I'm busy with other matters and (b) the novelty value of "Sollog" has worn off for me. -- Hoary 02:49, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

Unfortunate naming

While perusing the Philly court archives for more material, I stumbled across someone who simply must be related to Sollog. If you think being named "John P. Ennis" is bad, consider going through life as Lolita Ennis. -- 06:16, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is John P.Ennis really his name? Come on now....

That's why I wanted to see some court records -- with a name like that, there was a sizable chance that this was all just some elaborate hoax. --Carnildo 19:35, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes, it's a bit weird. Wyss 20:22, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
...however, I did lots of further checking yesterday and couldn't turn up a hint of any other name (although I did find a couple more interesting URLs which have already gotten installed in the article). Furthermore, F cam's summary of Ennis' lawsuits against the US government (below, which appear to have both been dismissed contrary to Ennis' intimations), refer to him as John Ennis and ENNIS. Throw in that middle initial and it doesn't take much imagination to understand why he might have issues with it. Wyss 18:24, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC) (forgot to sign)

We're being set up

Muslim Scholar embraces Sollog's Book Jesus Is Not God

Muslim Scholar Ibrahim B. Syed PHd has embraced Sollog's book "Jesus Is Not God - The Biblical Truth" [3]. Dr. Syed supports Sollog claim that Jesus cannot be God since Jesus claimed "My father is greater than I". [4]

Selawj 18:24, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not quite, but he quotes our friend on a page about declining readership of the bible. Wyss 19:58, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Hmmm... irfi.org (the page's address) is on a server in the Dallas Houston TX USA area but there doesn't appear a domain record of it... could be forged. Wyss 23:08, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Syed is a Clinical Professor of Medicine (Medical Physics and Nuclear Cardiology) at the University of Louisville School of Medicine, Louisville, Kentucky. He also writes articles about Islam and is a volunteer Muslim chaplain at many Kentucy prisons. Wyss 01:20, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Syed was born in India. He's an enthusiastic and prolific booster of Islam in the states and has hardly "embraced" Sollog's book. It looks to me as though he might have run across it on the Internet and quoted it without understanding the qualifications or background of its author. Wyss 01:30, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Islam as a whole considers that Jesus was just a human prophet , I don't see how a Muslim saying "Jesus is not God" is worthy of attention F cam 20:35, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
Yes. This has all the symptoms of someone pressed for time who quickly searches the Internet for a fit-to-order quote without doing a jot of due diligence on the source. I suspect Ennis ran across the citation during a vanity Google session, heart pitter patter. A cautionary tale, that. Wyss 21:20, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

a2kafir "censoring" important sollog info

Look at history page, a2kafir is censoring important Sollog info about connection to terrorists and muslim scholars. While most of you may think discussion 20 year old minor crimes like a dui, the truth is muslim scholars are embracing sollog's views and he has a clear connection to osama saince al-qaida is striking on key dates in his writings. Censor 12kafir and put important info about sollog's terrorist and muslim connections. All you have done is refer over and over to howard altman articles who by the way professes to have mossad connections. My posts referred to major articles by a muslim scholar, the NY Times, Der Spiegel and other major resources. It seems this site only wants insignificant rants by people like howard altman. You cry out that no one takes Sollog seriously, yet when you post such serious matters you censor it.

Sollog is a terrorist, he is connected to Atta and Osama. Expose sollog for what he is, an evil terrorist

Selawj 18:31, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your assertions that he is a terrorist or associates with terrorists are not fact and shot not be listed as such. If you have proof of him associating with terrorist please feel free to share it. Also, having connections to muslim scholars by no means makes one a terrorist.--DasAlbatross 18:41, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This page asserts he was reported to the FBI for terrorist threats. I have linked to pages claiming he and Mohammed Atta the mastermind of 911 both lived in Coral Springs. How does someone give exact info about 911 that lives where Atta does not be a terrorist? So it's okay for the article to link to biased rants by Altman, but pointing to articles about Atta and Sollog connection are wrong? The fact that both Atta and Sollog lived in Coral Springs is inportant known fact of people interested in Sollog story. The fact Muslim scholars openly embrace his religious views is important. That is unless this site just wants to have an attack piece on Sollog and not significant information about how he is preceived by Muslim scholars and how there is known connection between Sollog and Atta. There is no serious discussion here of the known Sollog hit on 911. The reason he hit this is he lived in Coral Springs where Atta lived. Many have noted that fact. Dozens of pages exist on the Net and Usenet about the Atta/Sollog/Coral Sprints connection. Yet that isn't provable? But, you post to allegations of pornography crimes and DUI's babased on one reporter who has an obvious hatred of Sollog? Selawj 18:55, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Does anyone else find it weird that this newbie Selawj has a similar writing style to Ennis and his merry band of sockpuppets? This saga gets odder all the time.A2Kafir 18:43, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
So anyone putting important Sollog terrorist information into this article is Sollog? Sollog is a known terrorist.Selawj 18:55, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Look, whether you're a sockpuppet or not aside, links to usenet groups and personal web pages do not count as citations. His arrests and criminal history are a matter of public record. If you can come up with something other than opinion then perhaps your points can be considered.--DasAlbatross 19:04, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Public record is PACER 96CV1499 it explains there was not AZ Warrant. The source for the false info is Altman, whereas the public record explains no warrant from AZ was there.Selawj 19:35, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
96CV 1499? This is the same document that contains a warning of the Oklahoma City bombing, Princess Diana's death, a "proof" of UFOs, warnings of the September 11 attacks, the non-existance of the USA as a nation in 2001, the school shooting "Line of Death", and presumably many similar things? --Carnildo 19:52, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Sollog er, Selawj seems rather familiar with Ennis' legal troubles. Wyss 20:01, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • It took me a paragraph or so to start hearing the familiar beat and mildly dyslexic cadence. At first, I thought the syntax might very well be that of an educated Arab speaking English as a second language. Also, note that Selawj has phonetic similarities to Sollog, who can't resist using exotic sounding names for his sockpuppets. This is a clever move, trying to stir up more publicity for the deathporn by starting rumours of a connection between Ennis and Atta. Where's the evidence? Wyss 19:22, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Sollog uses coral springs for his office address. Atta lived in Coral Springs. Do you deny atta was known to live in coral springs? Do you deny Sollog.com is registered to coral springs?Selawj 19:31, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oh. I see. So, like, Barbara Streisand and Larry Hagman both live in Malibu CA, so that means they're involved together in a conspiracy to... ? Wyss 19:44, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Actually, I have the sneaking suspicion that he is trying to get something which could be considered libelous on the article so that he can come back with another sock puppet and scream about legal action.--DasAlbatross 19:26, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I suspect you're right, in that Ennis is likely to take any opportunity he can find to influence the article's content or circumstances to his advantage. Wyss 19:28, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes, it does seem quite possible that this is Sollog or a Sollogite (are there any?) trying to set Wikipedia up for a libel suit, or at least impugning WP's reputation by injecting false information. I've removed from this page Selawj/Sollog's repost of the content deleted from the article. -- ChrisO 19:51, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Read up on borderline personality disorder. It wouldn't be surprising at all if Ennis tried to post slanderous information via a sockpuppet and then came back to harass WP about it. --MarkSweep 20:32, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I wrote a few words on personality disorders here the other day, and using the same username on Slashdot as well. There are plenty of PD symptoms here but the same holds true for other cranks/trolls. They can be ruthlessly manipulative & devious so exercise caution. Gtoomey 23:10, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, Gtoomey. I read your Slashdot post, and fully agree with your assessment and warnings. I was merely practicing some random folk-psychology, I don't really know what I'm talking about. However, it's clear that our friend has tried just about anything: first, more or less playing by the rules; but then, when he couldn't get his way, vandalism; using sock puppets to create the illusion of broad-based support; profanity and vile personal attacks; potentially harassing phone calls; hate web sites; producing his own "court order"; threatening to sue in US courts, and threatening to report WP to the FBI; perhaps posting deliberately false and slanderous information via a sockpuppet, maybe to point a finger at WP to shame us into giving in; allegations of "hate crimes" and slander; cleverly adopting WP terminology and procedures, talking about "bias" and "POV" in the article that should get "corrected"; arguing that editors who have opposed him in the past should be banned; etc. It almost seems that nothing is off limits and the end of pushing his POV justifies any means necessary to accomplish that. --MarkSweep 08:16, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Does anyone else find it weird that this newbie Selawj has a name that when reversed spells J Wales? Many of his sockpuppet's names have this reverse spelling characteristic.

Sollog Atta Connection

This info is being censored all over the net. http://web.archive.org/web/20040307062958/http://rulestheweb.com/sollog It is now only in the archive. Why?

More on Sollog/Atta http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.terrorism.world-trade-center/msg/dd4274923c436b3f==Sollog Atta Connection==

This info is being censored all over the net. http://web.archive.org/web/20040307062958/http://rulestheweb.com/sollog It is now only in the archive. Why?

More on Sollog/Atta http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.terrorism.world-trade-center/msg/dd4274923c436b3f
More http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.prophecies.nostradamus/msg/ce8a05f0e0c43800

PS Sollog Sucks

  • This classic bit of Ennis-style expletive was posted anonymously by, from behind a firewall on a server controlled by Comcast in Philadelphia. Comcast IPs have been used in the past by Sollog sockpuppets. Wyss 20:16, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Regarding changing one's name to God

There has been legal precedent. Formerly Charles Haffey, a man now named "I Am Who I Am," was denied the right, in a florida court of law, to have his name changed to "God"[5]. Changing your name is different in every jurisdiction, however, for the most part you can Simply change your name--no legalities required--so long as you are not using the duality as a means to escape legal responsibility. In some states you are required to submit a public notice announcing the name change. Of course, having a religious name is protected under the law so long as it is being used in that sense. I know folks who have completely stopped using their birth name and changed it to their religious name officially in a court of law. As a matter of hearsay and trivia, the cheapest court to have your name changed in may be Washington state, where it should run you about 70 bucks. From what I see on the SSA website, legally changing your name is very easy in every way.

I don't see a specific citation, but I know the Beltway Snipers wrote on tarot cards that they were God. According to this metafilter posting (cnn) they were also denied the right to be called God in another florida court of law.

Perhaps this information is helpful, or perhaps it is just trivia :) --Alterego 20:49, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I should mention, if someone does get their name legally changed, it is a matter of public record. Someone in philadelphia could go to the courthouse and pull records for John P. Ennis, in theory. --Alterego 21:05, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Just use Pacer and see Sollog aka GOD vs USA Et Al Eastern District PA case 96cv-1499

The case is 2:96-cv-01499-SD ENNIS v. USA, et al. Wyss 20:21, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

An open letter to Sollog

Hey, buddy, come on. We out number you, and your sockpuppets. We can play this game much longer than you, and we can work in shifts too. You have to sleep. You'll never get this to have your POV, as Wikipedia strives for the NPOV. All you're doing is wasting your time.

Don't you have followers or something?

This approach had been tried alreay during an earlier vandalism spree. Keep in mind that we're potentially dealing with someone with narcissistic/borderline personality disorder, so ordinary standards of boredom, civility, sense of purpose, etc. may not apply. --MarkSweep 21:57, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Indeed. Its pointless trying to reason. He'll be manic about the publicity he's getting and anxious that he cant control anything. I mentioned an ongoing distortion campaign in my Slashdot post a few days ago. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=132750&cid=11090407 Gtoomey 02:03, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Just a borderline disorder :) ? The usual pattern is for him to go into a meltdown for a few days and then disappear in a huff for weeks. The outbursts are unpredictable, but may occur when his mania, narcissism and a messianic complex are in 'conjunction'. That or a lack of medication. I suggest you'll never get rid of him, no matter what course of action you take. But locking this article and throttling contributions from open proxies or new users would be one straightforward way to limit the vandalism. --Cchunder 10:04, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • The Internet is replete with examples of forum denizens attempting to reason with this person. The past is no guarantee of the future, but it can be a useful indicator of probabilities: IMHO a rational exchange with Sollog/Ennis is highly unlikely. Wyss 22:01, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm the original poster of the open letter. I really should register.. but I don't have too much time to get involved deeply in this. I suspect Wyss or Mark.. you'll be better served calling for a vote of protection on the page.. let it stay there a few weeks..

These anonymous posts were contributed by a user at, [6] via a server in Chicago USA for which there appears to be no domain record. This is the same user who reverted a spree of Sollog vandalism on this page about two minutes after it occurred, earlier this evening. Wyss 23:23, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That would be me. I am NOT Sollog, but a humble programmer who was bored and came over from Slashdot. I noticed he was hitting the page again, and reverted. Redcard 23:36, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Here come the Feds!

Sollog is now spamming Usenet claiming that "WINKIPEDIA [sic] SPREADING LIES AGAIN" and that "WIKIPEDIA & SLASHDOT.ORG BEING INVESTIGATED BY FBI" (he seems to have an aversion to verbs). Usenet doesn't seem to be buying it [7]. So if the gentlemen from the FBI run across this thread, welcome to Winki, er, Wikipedia... ;-) -- ChrisO 23:39, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Translation of Spiegel Article

At last, the Spiegel article about Sollog (along with a picture of Howard Altman). This is a translation from German, so when reading the Altman quotes bear in mind they went from English to German and back again. Wyss 00:44, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Sollog article is a Joke & Wyss chats with Ennis

Sollog article is a Joke

That is the opinion of one of your own long term members. Do you think any encyclopedia in the world has anything like this article in it? It and this talk page is nothing but an attack and laugh at Sollog page. What is a joke is there are Toh members, how do you think they feel they way you are treating Sollog and saying they don't exist? You all think Sollog did this or that. Prove it.

What is wrong with this article?

1. Sollog is known as Sollog not John Ennis not Sollog Immaneul et al, not God. Sollog is known to many as Sollog. Calling him John Ennis is like calling Muhammad Ali Cassius Clay. It is obvious most of you were not taught to 'repect' everyones religious belief. So what if Sollog wants to think he and everyone else is God? So what. Does that give you the right to slander him and his belief? Do you really think all the Sollog posts in usenet are Sollog? Respect to Sollog should be shown in that his name is Sollog, that is how he is know to many. Yes his birth name was John Ennis, does he use it at all today? No. Calling someones religious name a pen name shows no respect. So the beginning of the article needs to be changed. Sollog full religious name Sollog Immanuel Adonai-Adoni, birth name John Ennis.

2. The next line should be what is he known for. He's a. A psychic/prophet b. His prophecies are well known on the Net (he appears in most directories as a known psychic or mystic if you research him without bias 3. He has authored a large amount of books, someone here made a big deal they don't have ISBN's, so what. Someone else found out why that is, Sollog's religious beliefs think ISBN and bar coding is connected to biblical prophecy about 666, guess what he isn't the only person with that opinion. So once again religious ignorance and bias has shown through the article. No one knows how many companies have published what of Sollog since he makes it a point to keep ISBN's off his work. At least he practices what he believes.

3. TOH, it is a religious movement, who knows how many belong. Does it matter? Do you think if Sollog and say 5 people show up in a court room complaining about what went on here it would mean more to the court than if 1000 showed up, or 1 Million. The courts will treat TOH as a belief no matter how few there are or how many. Religious freedom is one of the rights courts bend over for. So this site should also respect the right of anyone to be Toh or any belief.

4. A serious review of the major Sollog prophecies is needed, if you can't accept the fact he has had some uncanny hits than you shouldn't be editing this article. The fact is he did have hits. The fact is he was detained after the Oklahoma City bombing. The fact is the US Government arrested him over his prophecies and the judge explained in the court record in very strong words to the US prosecutor that what Sollog writes as a prophet is a protected religious freedom and not a threat and if he saw Sollog in his court again he would have the prosecutors arrested for harassing Sollog. Why do I know that? I've seen most of the transcripts of various Sollog court cases. The Federal courts treated him with great respect. I think the same should be done here.

If you have seen these transcripts could you tell others where to find them? it would be most helpful. As for the hits, it's rather likely that they'll happen if you are loose enough about numbers and the specifics. For the madrid bombings Sollog gives 9 separate dates, and 9 possible events. If you assume that 50 of these events happen a year (vast underestimate, according to [8] there were 193 acts of international terrorism in 2003 and that the list of events includes hurricanes and earthquakes, but lets assume that we only look at the bigger ones), and that the events are independant and spread uniformly throughout the year (untrue for hurricanes, but probably ok for the rest), the probability that none of them happen on any of the listed 9 dates after 3 years is only 2%F cam 02:25, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

5. A bibliography is needed.

6. Some note of some of the arrests of Sollog is perhaps needed, however, is a 20 year old DUI a big deal? The fact the US Secret Service arrested him is a big deal, the fact they were admonished in open court by the Judge and had to withdraw the case is a big deal. Making this arrest material a big deal is a sure way to turn the article into a joke. Sollog isn't known for what he did 25 or 20 years ago. He's known for what he has done publicly since 1995.

7. Usenet, well this page and the article is resembling Usenet, it's a joke.

Mediadog 01:48, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you're such a long-term member, why is this your very first contribution? And why is its syntax so similar to Sollog and his sockpuppet legion?A2Kafir 01:45, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
And to address point 3: since when is insulting religion illegal? Some people make careers of it.A2Kafir 01:50, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Do an analysis of what Sollog has written. Have you read any of his books. Show a similarity to any posts here. Do you think you are an expert on syntax? The same old lie, everyone pro-Sollog is Sollog. Get a life and answer the charges. As has been pointed out by a long term member (not me see above complaints calling this article a joke) Mediadog 01:48, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mediadog is not a registered long term wiki user. Wyss 01:50, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and dog is god spelled backwards. Hi Ennis :). How's tricks? Wyss 01:51, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

More lies, everyone is not Sollog. So all the people using dog in handle (a common slang word today) is Sollog? Why don't you answer the charges, one of your main members above called this article a 'joke'. And all you do is more look it has to be Sollog crap. Mediadog 01:54, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

True. I'm sure not Sollog. Anyway, sure, the dog in the handle's no biggie. Hey John, I was wondering, why do you keep showing up here as a sockpuppet when everyone knows it's you? I'll bet if you just came out and said, "ok, ok, fuck it, this is the big guy, why are you guys raggin' on me all the time?"... we might actually open up, like, a frickin dialog with you. How 'bout it? Wyss 01:59, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No matter how much you write John or Sollog, those are not my names. Why are you calling me John if you think I'm Sollog? Would you call Muhammad Ali Cassius? You like insulting peoples religion. Look in the mirror and all you will find is hate. When you die I hope you have to explain to God why you attacked Sollog like this. Mediadog 02:11, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Dude, when I'm facing God after I die, Sollog will be the LAST thing on my mind. And I'm guessing God won't bring you up, either.A2Kafir 02:20, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
As I said several days ago, Muhammed Ali is not a sockpuppet. Have you forgotten? Oh John, let's get past all this shit and get down to it. You say you're God, I say you're a deathporn dealer. Is there really any difference at all between the two? Wyss 02:14, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dang, I lost him. Do ya think maybe he skipped class the day they covered elenchos? ;) Wyss 02:31, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, for all it's worth, at least now he's posting in a semi-coherent manner using real sentences. -- Ld 02:45, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mediadog (whose contributions have all been to this one article) writes: TOH, it is a religious movement, who knows how many belong. Does it matter? I don't think anybody would worry much if it were a question of whether there were (a) 20 or (b) 40 members. But can you demonstrate that it has any members at all? Does it have any buildings for meetings? Have there been any conferences? Have there been TV interviews with members who weren't John P. Ennis? (Incidentally, could you contribute any photo of Ennis for this article?) -- Hoary 03:37, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

You need to research something before you open your mouth. You're the person that said there were no Sollog books due to lack of ISBN's. Now that someone else posted to an article explaining why that is do you still think there are no books? What about www.1ebooks.com/sollog did you download the samples? Do they exist? Why no images of Sollog? Or do you insist on being a jerk by calling someone by a birth name when they desire you to call them by their religious name. Do you call Ali by Cassius still? You need to look in the mirror and see the evil littler person you are. You are doing nothing but trying to harass Sollog and members of Toh, you disgust me. You want to talk to a member of Toh go to their site and look for the contact Toh members in your area page. They have thousands of members all over the world. I know quite a few of them. You are so ignorant with your questions, if you researched the belief all your answers would be answered. Go to a synagogue and take a picture of Moses, and then post it here. Then go to a Mosque and take a photo of Mohammed. Then post it here. Go ahead. Guess what there are no images of either Moses or Mohammed from their time for the same reason images of Sollog are prohibited. It's a religious law, NO IMAGES OF GOD OR THE PROPHETS ARE ALLOWED. Don't you just hate such ignorance.Mediadog 04:10, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"Guess what there are no images of either Moses or Mohammed from their time...". Um, Mr. Ennis, what kind of camera equipment was around in the time of Moses? I'm guessing that 40 years of wandering the desert left little opportunity for Polaroids. And it is written that Mohammed couldn't get his hands on that nice Nikon he always wanted......A2Kafir 14:20, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Note, the display of any likeness of the prophet Mohammed is considered blasphemy by even most moderate Muslims (this is one reason why Hollywood has never made a bio-pic on the subject- its mere existence would severely alienate a huge swath of the target audience, and worse). Further, displaying likenesses of Moses and Jesus has either been banned or quite controversial across various periods, groups and regions throughout Judeo-Christian history. Essentially, Ennis cites theological precedent as the reason why there don't seem to be any photos of him available. Seems to me there must be at least four or five mug shots held by scattered police forces (and of course, the FBI). Wyss 14:38, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Actually, there has been a movie made about Muhammad[9]. They got around the problem of images of the prophet and Allah being blasphemy by having the movie take place from Muhammad's point of view and representing Allah as a light.--DasAlbatross 17:33, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Mediadog, old chap, I was attempting some research. Since you write in the same style as Ellis, you're probably him and can supply some info. But rather than answering questions, you're wittering on about how I might gaze at myself in a mirror, etc. Since two parts of what you write do seem to make sense, I'll address them. (1) ISBN and the genuineness of books I didn't say that the lack of ISBN numbers implied that there were no Sollog books. Instead, I pointed out that no normal retailer appeared to sell any, and none among a small number of very large libraries whose catalogues I checked stocked any. Somebody else then suggested the existence of an ISBN as a criterion for a book. I may or may not have commented on this; I did point out that ISBNs weren't limited to works printed on paper. In response to an objection from you writing in a different (but similarly transparent) guise, I pointed out that the publishers of religious works (e.g. the Q'uran) routinely obtained ISBNs for them. (2) Ali:Clay/Sollog:Ennis Ali/Clay is well known, Sollog/Ennis is not. Ali is almost universally referred to as Ali, Sollog/Ennis/etc is perhaps more often referred to as Sollog than as Ennis but there's no great imbalance. -- Hoary 06:17, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)
Just call him what the Federal courts say his legal name is. GOD Let's see Google says 17,400 Sollog pages (fans of Sollog LOOK 147 Sol's birtday again) and then there's John Patrick Ennis only 300 pages http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22john+patrick+ennis%22&btnG=Search
Note, the federal courts called him John Ennis, with an "aka Sollog Immanuel Adonai God" tacked on. Wyss 18:35, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

His 'prophecies' certainly are well known on the net, since they are easily the worst, vaguest, lamest, demonstrably wrong of any at the moment. How's the Pope doing? Oh that's right he's still not dead despite Sollog reeling off multiple dates. What about those GAMES OF DEATH in Athens? Yup such a terrible waste of life. Or the SATANIC SACRIFICE of Elizabeth Smart? It must be news to her. Or Bill Clinton dying in office? Ah yes, the nation mourned. Or all those US cities GUARANTEED to be destroyed by 2001? Only now we're picking up the pieces. Or that ever changing wibbly wobbly LINE OF DEATH? Or all those GREAT HURRICANES that never destroyed any cities? Better luck next time.

These prophecies have been seriously reviewed and then seriously laughed at.

As for the TOH being a religious movement - one person and a bunch of socks does not a movement make. I don't suppose the TOH celebrates the "Feast of Maximum Occupancy" by any chance does it? --Cchunder 10:20, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ban wyss for vandalism

  1. Do not maliciously alter other people's comments, blank the page, etc. This is considered vandalism and will be reverted.

He's altering my posts. Mediadog 04:03, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've just altered this very post of yours, but merely in order to save space. Which alteration by Wyss are you referring to? (An alteration on this page or in the article? And at what time?) -- Hoary 04:13, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)
Face it, anyone that wants to see what you did to this page can look it up in history. This page says NO ALTERING OTHER PEOPLES POSTS, you did and you should be banned from this article, you are biased and harassing anyone who posts positively about Sollog. Mediadog 04:25, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm hereby altering this last post of yours, removing a line break in order to make the argument (such as it is) easer to follow. That's the extent of the alteration. To the best of my understanding, there's nothing destructive about such behavior, let alone anything that would prompt being banned from Wikipedia. (I haven't heard of people being banned from a specific article.) Right, Mediadog, you seemed to imply that Wyss had maliciously altered your posts. Sure, anybody can look things up. But there have been many edits? Why should anyone hunt among them for the edit that may or may not be the one that you find offensive? If you think an edit is so offensive that you want its perpetrator to be banned for having made it, surely you can summon the energy to tell us which edit it was. So: which post, and when? Please either (a) explain what you mean lucidly or (b) stop banging on about it. -- Hoary 06:03, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)
So adding false info about a conversation with Sollog isn't editing someones work? How much time have you spent editing out what Sollog fans have posted? I guess your time isn't worth too much since you're working for free here to harass and defame Sollog and his members.
My time, user of (whose only contributions have been Ennis/Sollog-related), is indeed not worth so little that I'm going to dig around in the history to find what "Mediadog" might be referring to. Mediadog seemed to imply that Wyss had maliciously altered Mediadog's comments. I made the mistake of taking this complaint seriously, asking for the specifics. None were forthcoming. Mediadog and you are just wasting time. Since you ask, I've spent little time removing material posted by "Sollog fans" (more likely Sollog/Ennis); I've spent a lot more time identifying material to which they/he lazily/hurriedly forgot to append ~~~(~). Thank you for your recent additions. -- Hoary 11:58, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)
"false info about a conversation"? I suppose that this false info is claiming that Mediadog is in fact Ennis? If so, he put this info into the section header, and since he didn't do it in such a way as to be putting words into Mediagod's mouth, I hardly think it can be considered malicious. If Mediadog had put up a section title of "I, Mediadog, am not Ennis", and Wyss had altered it to read "I, Mediadog, am Ennis", then that would be malicious; what Wyss did is not. -- Khym Chanur 00:42, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
So far as I can tell, the only ways in which Wyss has altered Mediadog's talk posts is to add "& Wyss chats with Ennis" to the end of "Sollog article is a Joke" section header, and to change the indentation level of one of Mediadog's comments so that following the flow of conversation would be easier. The rule that you quoted says "Do not maliciously alter other people's comments", and neither of those things is malicious. Or, if somehow they are malicious, then you'd better ban me too, because I just changed the indentation of several of your comments (and also the indentation of Hoary's comments). -- Khym Chanur 00:42, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
I put maliciously in there precisely for this reason, to allow for reasonable modifications of unreasonable posts, correcting someone else's typos, removal of personal attacks as stated as part of the larger set of rules, etc. As far as I can tell, Wyss has not done anything that would be against the letter or spirit of the rules. --MarkSweep 00:49, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Members of TOH that were banned

A long term member from Australia A member from the UK A member from Canada A member from California A member from Illinois A member from Florida

That's six different members of TOH that I personally know who were banned here.

You want PROOF there are any Toh members? Just click on the contact a member in your area link on the Toh contact page. You can email real Toh members around the world. Contact page is in Forum at http://www.templeofhayah.com under International TOH section. comment by Mediadog at 04:18, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC) temporarily interrupted

  • Looks like you forgot to put that link in, John. I guess that's understandable, what with so many AIS deathporn sites to update... wiki articles to vandalize... decrees to write. Anyway, there is no International TOH section at http://www.templeofhayah.com. At least, there wasn't when I posted this ;) Wyss 04:52, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Contact page is in Forum at http://www.templeofhayah.com under International TOH section. What part of that didn't you understand? IN FORUM under INTERNATIONAL TOH SECTION. Are you banned at TOH? Are you a member of TOH? Only TOH members can read the Forum. So looks like you have to JOIN Toh to read the info. Here is direct link, but you have to JOIN Toh to view it http://www.templeofhayah.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16

Comment... Yes. Ennis has finally remembered to add it. Wyss 13:43, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comment continued: Just run a trace on some of the banned IP's here, let's see there's Canada, the UK, Australia, the United States. IP's from around the world banned because they support Sollog. There is a huge class action lawsuit being prepared by Toh lawyers against this site and the public company that runs /.Org, VA Software trading as LNUX. http://www.247news.net/2004/20041215-lnux.shtml Mediadog 04:18, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That might mean that Ennis has supporters in the named countries, or it might mean that he knows how to find and use open proxies. There's no way to be sure. —No-One Jones 06:46, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Just a heads up in case you weren't aware, we all know that 247news.net is a Ennis controlled/written site.--DasAlbatross 14:29, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In case you missed it, a sock puppet person writing in the inimitable style of John P. Ennis has recently been defacing user pages with messages such as (formatted less wastefully): The Sollog page was ORDERED to be REMOVED due to HATE CRIMES / http://www.templeofhayah.com/supremecouncil/decisions/wikipedia-hatecrimes.pdf / Anyone disobeying this order will end up charged with HATE CRIMES. Just one problem with this is that no credible evidence has been presented for the claim that anybody other than Ennis (and perhaps his wife) believes that "TOH", or its "supreme council", numbers anybody beside Ennis (and perhaps his wife). So all this means is "Ennis is unhappy", which is already known. Here, Mr Ennis, is another opportunity for you to provide evidence that "TOH" etc. exist other than merely in your imagination (and perhaps that of your wife). Do its members regularly meet somewhere? If so, where? Have they had occasional meetings? Can you specify any news stories reporting on encounters with "TOH" members other than yourself? If you can't, then I'd advocate changing Ennis is the founder of Temple of 'Hayah (TOH) to Ennis vigorously publicizes the fiction of a "Temple of 'Hayah" ("TOH") or similar. -- Hoary 02:17, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

The only TOHs in play here are the ones on the ends of the editors' feet... ;-) -- ChrisO 02:23, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Propose major edit of arrest section

The arrest section is 1. too much info it makes article look like attack 2. has false info

You can read a real court record on the AZ warrant via PACER, the case is 96CV 1499, in the complaint Sollog explains how the Secret Service was faxed a letter by AZ saying they did not want Sollog/Ennis. As much as some of you won't want to admit it, that is the public record and one of the main reasons Sollog sued the US government for false arrest. So all the stuff about AZ has to be dropped, it's simply not true. Also, your only source is Altman, I've provided a real public record that explains the whole thing.

Another thing that has to be taken out is all the stuff about reporting Sollog to the FBI by Altman, so what. If he did anything wrong he would have been arrested. Anyone can say they reported someone to the FBI. Look members of Toh are reporting Wiki to the FBI, so what. Real news moves on charges or filings. Reports are reports anyone can say someone did something. So, to make this look like a real encyclopedia article stick to facts like if Sollog was charged with such threats by FBI and if he was convicted. In this case neither happened so the charges were ungrounded by Altman which speaks volumes to his credibility.

I will be the first one to admit the Secret Service did arrest Sollog in 1995. What was the disposition? Case withdrawn right after rabin was assassinated. How about this, SS arrested Sollog FACT (there are scans of the case on sites) then FACT it was withdrawn after rabin was assassinated then a link to the court transcripts where Sollog mentions how a world leader would die on 11/3 (rabin was assassinated on 11/4 the so called Sollog one day off code).

Yes there was a significant arrest threatening the US President. There is also an exhibit from the case, the document Sollog released to the media warning Clinton to never fly back to Jackson Hole Wyoming or a plane crash would occur. That is a major part of the arrest story to fans of Sollog. It was why he was arrested for warning Clinton to not fly again to Jackson Hole. Then we can link to news accounts how one year later a presidential support plane crashed when Clinton flew back to Jackson Hole.

As to the DUI thing, it is the least significant part of Sollog arrests, it was the only conviction for something that happened almost 20 years ago. You can look up state statues in PA it says the state has 5 years only to convict for a crime other than murder. I don't think a 20 year DUI that was overturned is news. It makes the article look weak. I didn't want to rip apart what is there now without people agreeing it was excessive and biased.

The above unsigned section was contributed by Mediadog at 05:26 GMT on Dec. 17th, 2004.

I've looked up the case on pacer, where it is listed as 2:96-cv-01499-SD ENNIS v. USA, et al. So much for his legal name being god (although Sollog Immanuel Adonai God is listed as an alias). There is another case (2:96-cv-03168-JP ENNIS v. UNITED STATES, et al), I'm not quite sure what the relationship between the 2 is, although the judge from the first case is on the list of defendants as well as President Clinton (for good measure I assume) and 2 other judges (I'm not sure why).
There's some amusing stuff in it. In the first case Ennis filed a motion requesting that the judge (Stewart Dalzell) be added to the list of defendants (which was pretty long to being with). This was denied which may be part of the reason for the second case. He also filed this motion
Motion by plaintiff John Ennis to order a lower court to acknowledge the plaintiff as counsel. to order a lower court to reschedule a date that the plaintiff is subpoenaed to appear, that is a religiouly observed holdy (sic.) day in his religious belief
Classic Ennis syntax. Basically everything seems to have been dismissed without prejudice to the defendants. F cam 16:22, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

Unfair revert put back to my last edit

I've corrected most of the errors in the article. It was starting to look balanced, pro Sollog info and anti Sollog info.

However someone reverted all my work.


If you notice the links I did you see all the negative stuff is there, plus a Sollog counter to most articles.

That is what Wiki is suppose to be one point the other side. Right now it is all one way, all anti Sollog.

Anyway, ONE OF YOU who is not biased and interested in keeping Wiki looking like a legit encyclopeida read my last edit before the massive revert and see how balanced it is. The Sollog negative stuff is still there, Sollog articles about the same thing are there to make it fair.

I put in a link to his corporate site since that is a major part of him, I also put in a link to his book titles, that is fair as is a future bibliography for his work.

I'm trying to help out and make the article show both sides, the major revert erased all the Sollog side and left only an attack.


It settles most of the argument, it explains the name, it puts in valid links to Sollog claims, it gives the article a look at both sides. If you just want one side then I'll stop wasting my time.

You can see the history of this page, you can see how biased the current article is. LOOK AT MY LAST EDIT, the page looked almost balanced. The only thing that needed work was the crimes section and a bibliography.

There were still more anti articles than pro.



Hi John,
I'm the one who reverted you. You seem to have a misconception on what the neutral point of view means. You wrote above:
It was starting to look balanced, pro Sollog info and anti Sollog info.
Neutrality is not the same as being "balanced". In fact, in this case, where there is overwhelming support for one side of an issue, balance is contrary to neutrality.
Furthermore, as I wrote in my edit summary, Wikipedia is not a link farm. It suffices to link to sollog.com and templeofhayah.com, without including adoni.us, 1ebooks.com, and 247news.net. --Dbenbenn 05:49, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC) (David)
Fine then remove all the biased Altman links, how many links to City Paper are there in article? Face it you are one of the people making this article look like a joke. Hey alterego or someone who understands all those links to City Paper is not neutral, it is an attack on Sollog. The fact is you can't handle all the links to the topics Altman was writing about. Point - Counterpoint. Someone that wants to bring some balance to this article, please revert back to my last edit and ban dbenbenn for being too biased to edit here. He's the great reverter, he's done it a few times if you look at history against other Sollog info. That info was very biased though. Mediadog

Are you God? (sorry, couldn't resist) Wyss 06:04, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The real demands of Ennis

Looking at the past suggestions by various accounts who claim to represent TOH or Solog, it is apparent that what is needed is a listing of the books, videos and other merchandise. In essence free advertising.

By putting emtpy links this material on the site it would encourage critical book reviews of the material and would ultimately lead to massive mirroring and indexing of your works. Given the way that search engines such as google work, this would ultimately have the very critical materials listed higher than your own pages that would allow people to purcahse them - turning your own attempt at advertising against you.

Solog/Ennis - you do not have anywhere near the backing of Scientology (that does have some measure of legal clout). Trying to get free advertising here and have the various material listed would be a mistake. Be content with the attention that you have gotten, the article as it is (continued conterversy only encourages people to dig deeper and turn up more material that you would rather not see), and the links back to the pages that you have. shagie Dec. 17, 06:13:07 UTC

Meanwhile, I think the current article's references to Ennis' "fines" levied on wiki, along with his harassment of Wales need serious re-writing. Wyss 22:22, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I got bored, so I clipped his logo out from one of his "court decisions."

Should we put it on the page?A2Kafir 22:26, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

While I'm assuming this may qualify as fair use, personally I think we should err on the side of caution and not give Sollog a legitimate reason to sue. Gamaliel 23:22, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think we should put it in. If it causes a problem it can always be removed later, but I don't think we should let fears of being sued hold us hostage. --Dbenbenn 23:29, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'd say it's fair use, and, uhm, illustrative... also good for another $1,000,000 levy from Ennis' sockpuppet council. Er, he may read this, so make that $10,000,000... $100,000,000... there'll be no end to it, so to speak. Wyss 23:46, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
There's enough precedent regarding the use of logos that WP has its own Template:Logo for that, which A2Kafir used on the image description page. Even if the logo was trademarked, we could still use it to talk about the organization which it is a trademark of. (A quick search at http://www.uspto.gov/ doesn't reveal anything relevant; except that "TOH" is a trademark of TOh products which applies to "Low flow fluid distribution components for fluid handling and irrigation applications (...)".) Anyway, no reason to become paranoid. --MarkSweep 00:03, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I added the logo to the page, but Vivin reverted me a minute later. --Dbenbenn 00:23, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It has now been removed, by Xwatcher, whose only contribution so far has been this. -- Hoary 07:04, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

Sorry about the revert

Sorry about the revert, I was reverting the version by MarkSweep and I didn't realize that I removed the logo. I didn't mean to.

No problem. I was wondering if that was what happened. :) --Dbenbenn 00:28, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Huh? Why would you want to revert my reversion of vandalism? --MarkSweep 00:35, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is Sollog's 'court judgement' against wikipedia encyclopedic?

I think this article is starting to get a bit too self referential. Sollog coming up with odd court judgements is hilarious, but should it be part of the article? Is this truly of encyclopedic interest? I'm asking this while I know there are many details in wikipedia articles (such a fan-related material) of which the encyclopedic nature can be debated. This case however can be clearly identified as a self-referential comment on wikipedia. A guideline might be that we want to avoid self-referential mentions to wikipedia in articles, unless it's a really major event in wikipedia's history that is involved somehow.

I don't consider any silly but harmless crackpot behavior like making up fake court judgements to be a major event in wikipedia's history. We have tons of text about wikipedia and wikipedia events, but it's in the talk space, where it belongs. This particular event doesn't seem to stand out among Sollog's activities either -- from what I've seen he goes into these kind of silly debates all the time. Martijn Faassen 02:41, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. TOH has so far not been confirmed as any sort of legitimate group at all, and any "judgements" proclaimed by it are meaningless. Just because Ennis gives it an official appearance doesn't mean we should report on it. Keep in mind that he's probably getting off on this just as he's annoyed by it. Don't indulge either him or our editors by including stuff our readers don't need to care about. 02:44, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Agreed, though I'd replace "legitimate group" with "real-world group". I see no evidence for concluding that the whole edifice isn't a fiction, perhaps (very optimistically) devised as a tax dodge. -- Hoary 02:54, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)
IMHO, the whole edifice has been constructed by Mr Ennis as a means of providing opportunities to make money and stoke his ego in as many ways as possible (never mind its actual success). Wyss 03:16, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree. The last paragraph of the "Legal problems" section should be trimmed or even removed. The details of his various threats aren't terribly notable. --Dbenbenn 03:04, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The language about Ennis levying "fines" on wiki has bothered me since it appeared. I don't think any of his "decrees" should be mentioned in the article, partly because they are patently worthless and therefore not notable. Reference to wikipedia should be kept at a scant minimum. I'm even uncomfortable with the reference to Wales, because this could all in turn be interpreted by casual readers that the article has been inevitably distorted. Wyss 03:10, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In all honesty, my intent in including the "fines" was partially that if it was linked from the article, somewhere, he would feel less compelled to link it from all over the place, making my job as a sysop easier. Granted, that's a questionable reason to add content to articles.
On another note, Wales is a victim of Ennis' actions, just as others in the media have been. Whether he needs a longer mention than the others is, of course, open to debate. Why not link this talk page (as an external link, of course) so that those interested in Ennis' interaction with the WP community can read it? Pakaran (ark a pan) 03:15, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I cut out the following paragraph:

Ennis has also threatened legal or "class action" suits against UFOMind.com, DNForum.com, NamePros.com, GoDaddy.com, and e-Bay (and its subsidiary PayPal). More recently he has threatened suits against Wikipedia and VA Software Corporation (owners of the Slashdot.org website) for the content of this article and the adverse publicity which its repeated vandalism has attracted. Ennis' Temple of 'Hayah organisation (in reality, Ennis himself) has published a "court judgment" in which Jimmy Wales and the "Wikipedia Foundation" (sic) are ordered to delete this article, and each pay a fine of $1 million in compensation. [10] An additional fine of $10 million was "levied" against Wales and the Wikimedia Foundation a few days later. [11] Given that the Temple of 'Hayah has no judicial standing, it remains unclear how Ennis expects to be able to enforce his "judgments." However, he or his followers have been quite successful in pasting links to them on random Wikipedia articles, and have been occasionally blocked from editing for doing so.

--Dbenbenn 03:12, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

While I agree that the specifics of his judgements against Wales/wikipedia are uninteresting, I would leave the statement that he enjoys making vacuous legal threats and demands of one million dollars (to be read like Dr. Evil) F cam 03:17, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Yep. A sentence about a long history of making threats to sue for mega sums would work... one might also consider holding off on any mention of the Wales incident until some time has passed. Time will likely provide the needed perspective and context. Wiki's an encylcopedia, etc etc. Wyss 03:24, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The article does mention threatening to sue Altmann for "one trillion dollars, mu ah ha ha." I agree that the "long history" should be pointed out. --Dbenbenn 03:31, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
To note that the threat against Altman wasn't an isolated event, but to avoid excessive self-reference, I mentioned his threat against Slashdot as another example. JamesMLane 07:30, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I also removed:

Sollog or his supporters later made offensive telephone calls to Wales and created a website attacking both Wales and Wikipedia, as well as Wales' family and the nature of his business.

Although it was a nasty thing to do, we don't really need to tattle it to Wikipedia's readers here. Will it be remembered in five years? --Dbenbenn 03:22, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If it is, the tale can be told from that longer view... Wyss 03:26, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This line, Ennis has broken the law on a number of occasions seems superfluous to me. Why not just start the para, "In 1987, Ennis admitted..."? Wyss 03:33, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, the paragraph needs some sort of introduction. I don't like "broken the law", however, which implies he was guilty. I'm trying to think of a more neutral phrase... --Dbenbenn 03:49, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Heh heh... take it from me, that para don't need no intro ;) Wyss 03:57, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dbenbenn, I think Ennis and His Critics and Legal Problems are now much improved in content, perspective and style. Wyss 05:16, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)