Changes

* He even misattributes material.  The most egregious example of this was when he claimed that the eminent linguist George Lakoff had endorsed [[Neurolinguistic programming]] - a significant and important fact if true, but had he bothered to check his source, he would have seen that the quote was not by Lakoff.   

* He even misattributes material.  The most egregious example of this was when he claimed that the eminent linguist George Lakoff had endorsed [[Neurolinguistic programming]] - a significant and important fact if true, but had he bothered to check his source, he would have seen that the quote was not by Lakoff.   

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

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

* 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. Furthermore, the promotion and advocacy is unsophisticated and lazy in the sense that it is apparently exlusively based on Google. FT2's edits are replete with unsubstantiated opinion -- the "NLP and Science" article is a particularly egregious example of this tendency, it is a mass of unsubstantiated verbiage".  ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=94646652&oldid=94631169]).

* 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. Furthermore, the promotion and advocacy is unsophisticated and lazy in the sense that it is apparently exlusively based on Google. FT2's edits are replete with unsubstantiated opinion -- the "NLP and Science" article is a particularly egregious example of this tendency, it is a mass of unsubstantiated verbiage"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=94646652&oldid=94631169].

* This manner seems almost deliberately calculated to annoy and infuriate editors with an academic background.  His pernicious 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.  

* This manner seems almost deliberately calculated to annoy and infuriate editors with an academic background.  His pernicious 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.