Is it just sensible to limit the making of inserted editing comments to only where some form of editing action has actually taken place?

Does that in fact define what an inserted editing comment should always and only be?

Does it not follow that all cases where any form of imposed deleting action is judged to be required - supposedly for the good of our forum - that that an editing comment is always supplied in the place of the censored material?

When a change to this will for the first time enable our forum to see the true nature and current level of censorship and to be able to express an informed opinion on whether this action taken in their name - is required by them.

Why is it now judged to be fair - by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - to insert editing comments into existing posts, when no form of editing action has taken place (and often against the wishes of the poster) but somehow unfair for all cases of imposed editing action to have an editing comment of explanation?

If there is nothing to hide - why does the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team prefer take a course of action that is not open and as result may lead posters to judge that there is something to hide?