Changes

* He misunderstands the Wikipedia policy prohibiting 'synthesis'.  See [http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:The_Wikipedia_Point_of_View/Studies_on_Neurolinguistic_programming this] for his citations of papers that do not mention Neurolinguistic programming at all, but are cited as if they ''did'', because they are consistent with some aspects of it.

* He misunderstands the Wikipedia policy prohibiting 'synthesis'.  See [http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:The_Wikipedia_Point_of_View/Studies_on_Neurolinguistic_programming this] for his citations of papers that do not mention Neurolinguistic programming at all, but are cited as if they ''did'', because they are consistent with some aspects of it.

Synthesis is a type of original research that is strictly prohibited in Wikipedia.

Synthesis is a type of original research that is strictly prohibited in Wikipedia.

*  If this is pointed out or challenged, he indulges in long-winded denunciations in a way that is guaranteed to escalate hostility, or he conceals his lack of understanding behind an impenetrable thicket of words.  This makes any reasonable discussion of the subject matter impossible.  At the same time he assumes an aura of righteousness by means of his interminable invocation of Wikipedia rules and tenets.  He tends personalises all editorial discussion with ''ad hominem'' attacks.

*  If this is pointed out or challenged, he indulges in long-winded denunciations in a way that is guaranteed to escalate hostility, or he conceals his lack of understanding behind an impenetrable thicket of words.  This makes any reasonable discussion of the subject matter impossible.  At the same time he cloaks himself an aura of righteousness by his interminable invocation of Wikipedia rules and tenets.  He tends to personalise all editorial discussion with ''ad hominem'' attacks.

* He seems to many to be driven by a personal agenda.  One person said that his editorship "absolutely stinks of partiality and POV motivations", and that his claim of making an article "more neutral" is tantamount to watering it down to suit an agenda of which he himsel may not be fully conscious". Another said that he carries "an ideological stench wherever (s)he seems to go in "Wikipedia World". There is a clear advocacy and promotion in FT2s edits.  

* He seems to many to be driven by a personal agenda.  One person said that his editorship "absolutely stinks of partiality and POV motivations", and that his claims of making an article "more neutral" amount to watering it down to suit an agenda of which he himself may not be fully conscious. There is a clear advocacy and promotion in FT2s edits.  

* His edits are replete with unsubstantiated opinion.  One editor said that 'the "NLP and Science" article is a mass of unsubstantiated verbiage" <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=94646652&oldid=94631169]</ref>.

* His edits are replete with unsubstantiated opinion.  One editor said that 'the "NLP and Science" article is a mass of unsubstantiated verbiage" <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=94646652&oldid=94631169]</ref>.

* His manner seems almost deliberately calculated to annoy and infuriate editors with an academic background.  His insistence on absurd and trivialised standards of 'civility' to the exclusion of all editorial or content determined material, is having a marked and deleterious effect on the project.  

* His manner seems almost deliberately calculated to annoy and infuriate editors with an academic background.  His insistence on absurd and trivialised standards of 'civility' to the exclusion of all editorial or content determined material, is having a marked and deleterious effect on the project.