You have absolutely no evidence to suggest that I am a reasonable person, so I suggest you withdraw that insinuation.

Also, you have been blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orbiston.

Now, as for my not having replied to every single one of your points, well yes, when you present me with a wall of text of that nature, brimming with implications and assumptions and accusations and who knows what, I will indeed pick out the specific points that spring to mind. I'm not here to write essays explaining things to you. And in fact, much of this discussion should be happening on the talk page of the article, not here. But, since the template I used invited you here, I will entertain your questions here for a little while.

First, I don't see any "bizarre wall of steel" around Murphy's article. I see a single-purpose account (Orbiston) repeatedly and determinedly trying to insert negative material, and a small selection of other accounts and IP addresses (some of which were single purpose accounts, and some not) dealing with that. Orbiston was neither being "reasonable", nor trying "to do no more than mention SM's sexuality", nor was he willing to abide by Wikipedia's policies. That's why he got blocked - not "aggressive censorship".

I haven't used the word "conspiracy", so I have no idea where you got that from.

The Wikipedia page Stephen Fry mentions Fry's sexuality with due weight - I think one or two sentences out of a very lengthy article that has more than 150 references, as against 5 (currently) for the Murphy article. Also, Fry has publicly campaigned on gay rights and related issues - he deliberately makes it a part of his public persona and his internet fame. Murphy has not done so.

Now, imagining for a moment that your postulated scenario is correct, that the only reason that Murphy's sexuality was mentioned in published sources was that a "disgusting tabloid exposé" was planned, then I don't need to explain to you that such material is not the sort of thing we use to evidence commentary about a living person on Wikipedia.

I'm making this reply on an "I'm started so I'll finish" generosity basis, but really you have no right to make accusations of this nature, here or anywhere else. Don't do it, please.

As you are an investigative journalist, I recommend to you the website and forum http://wikipediocracy.com/ - that site has amongst its "trustees" a number of individuals who consider themselves "professional journalists" in the USA, and I am sure that many of them share similar concerns to yourself about places where young gay men can express their feelings.

Please don't make silly "might be behind this aggressive censorship" accusations here again, or I'll have to remove them without comment. I really am quite busy.  (talk)