It's not censorship.
He's a troll. The thread was started to troll and start fights.
And then cry because he was being insulted.
Wash, rinse, repeat... for eternity.
Can you prove it's trolling or is that just your opinion because you disagree with or dislike or are tired of the poster and their posts and opinions? It's a free country (for a little while longer). You can put someone on ignore, or skip the post, or choose not respond, or choose to respond and tell them they're full of it. What can't happen is locking and censoring their voice and opinion.
And even if it IS trolling - how is expressing contrary opinions, even if they're just meant to get a rise out of people, against the rules again? There are 439 pages of posts of people bickering with each other littered all over this site but this topic about Baker crosses the line?
"Trolling" being any type of violation is about as disingenuous and egregious as labeling an opinion "disinformation" just because you don't agree with it. There is no right to not be offended and there is no rule saying you get to censor opinions just because you disagree with the content or intent.
And removing/locking a thread because you disagree with a posters viewpoint, is absolutely censorship. It's literally the definition of it and it's bush league.