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