Note that editor    is hardly an unbiased editor on this case. His extremely biased and one-sided point of view on the SRA topic is obvious. 

from the SRA talk page
"We are required to report on topics to the extent and with a tone equivalent to the mainstream view of the topic discussed. Any emphasis on the credibility or reality of SRA is out of keeping with the majority belief that SRA is a discredited, if not embarassing part of the 80-90s. This has been discussed to death in the archives. If you do not agree with our policy on a neutral point of view you are welcome to contribute to another on-line venue elsewhere. You may be well served by reviewing this administrator's noticeboard - SRA is not a topic of mainstream interest and the page should not place any emphasis on source and text that gives the impression that SRA is perceived as anything except a moral panic. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) "

This point of  view ignores a large portion of the research and promotes the views of a few extremists.

Moreschi should have excused himself from any administrative action in this matter, due to his 
strong POV counter to mine, as shown above. This is a clear conflict of interest.