Changes

* He has no real knowledge of the subjects he edits, although he claims to have it.

* He has no real knowledge of the subjects he edits, although he claims to have it.

* He does not really understand the basics of neutral editing (although he claims to<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&oldid=94646652#Comment_to_sceptics_society_.28if_any_others_are_asking.29 This] edit by FT2 clearly shows the problem.  FT2 accuses two academic researchers with "persistent cognitive inability to comprehend WP:NPOV and a dozen other standards".  FT2 was instrumental in getting both of these experts banned.  For the contributions of one of these, see [http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:The_Wikipedia_Point_of_View/Flavius_Vanillus here]</ref>).  He cites erotic websites, self-published sources.  He quotes authors like Nancy Friday, whose work is pure pulp fiction.

* He does not really understand the basics of neutral editing (although he claims to<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&oldid=94646652#Comment_to_sceptics_society_.28if_any_others_are_asking.29 This] edit by FT2 clearly shows the problem.  FT2 accuses two academic researchers with "persistent cognitive inability to comprehend WP:NPOV and a dozen other standards".  FT2 was instrumental in getting both of these experts banned.  For the contributions of one of these, see [http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:The_Wikipedia_Point_of_View/Flavius_Vanillus here]</ref>).  He cites websites and self-published sources.  One academic said that "his promotion and advocacy is unsophisticated and lazy in the sense that it is apparently exlusively based on Google". He quotes authors like Nancy Friday, whose work is pure pulp fiction.

* He does not understand the principles of peer review. He imagines the fact that someone is published in the field, or has a doctorate, or is well-known, or has had their writings vetted by somebody else of note, is of itself sufficient to merit inclusion in an article.  His understanding of the relative merits of publications is seriously flawed, e.g. in referencing journals like the one put out by ''The International Society for Anthrozoology'' (which is not a recognised journal).  The following [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming/List_of_users_of_NLP list] suggests he is unable to distinguish between a training course and a university department.

* He does not understand the principles of peer review. He imagines the fact that someone is published in the field, or has a doctorate, or is well-known, or has had their writings vetted by somebody else of note, is of itself sufficient to merit inclusion in an article.  His understanding of the relative merits of publications is seriously flawed, e.g. in referencing journals like the one put out by ''The International Society for Anthrozoology'' (which is not a recognised journal).  The following [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming/List_of_users_of_NLP list] suggests he is unable to distinguish between a training course and a university department.

* He even misattributes material.  An egregious example 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 persistently misattributes material.  For example, 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 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 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.

* 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.  

* 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.  

* 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.  

Combined with the important position he holds on Wikipedia, and the reverential awe in which he is held by less knowledgeable and somewhat impressionable administrators, FT2 exercises a malignant and pernicious influence on the encyclopedia.  He has driven off a stream of excellent and well-qualified editors.  He has gathered around him a group of administrators who hold him in high esteem for his supposed impartiality and neutrality, and who will block upon a single word from him.

Combined with the important position he holds on Wikipedia, and the reverential awe in which he is held by less knowledgeable and somewhat impressionable administrators, FT2 exercises a malignant and pernicious influence on the encyclopedia.  He has driven off a stream of excellent and well-qualified editors.  He has gathered around him a group of administrators who hold him in high esteem for his supposed impartiality and neutrality, and who will block upon a single word from him.