Any form of editing action that is imposed without the originator's prior knowledge and permission is censorship.

Yes, although whether that's good or bad is open to discussion. Personally I'm not aware of any unmoderated internet forum which allows/allowed anonymous posting, has/had any significant number of members, and remained successful and flame-free. There simply is no such thing, and I'd rather that Mudcat didn't turn into Usenet, thanks all the same. If that means a more active moderating policy than was done previously, I'd rather see that than lose Mudcat altogether, as Usenet has been lost.

Any form of editing action or thread closure taken to prevent discussion on the thread's subject (even at the request of anyone) is censorship.

Not so, IMO.

For starters, personal insults are not discussions. For seconds, if all posters (or the main poster, know what I'm saying?) are saying the same damn thing without listening, then it's not censorship - there's nothing new being said. For thirds, flame-wars and personal insults tend to attract anonymous posters (for the convenience of stirring things up), and having to go and start another thread puts a damper on this to prevent it going further. For fourths, if you really, really care enough then there's the option of opening a second thread. And for fifths, don't tell us that because of censorship, you, Jack, Carol, MartinGibson and Uncle Tom Cobbley and all have not been given a chance to express your views - that is provably untrue.

Graham.