Changes

* 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 published 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 published 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 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.   

* 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.   

* 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''.

* 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''. 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 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.

*  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 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.  

* 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.