Okay, you've signalled that they do do it, but now there are not enough points of data. How many points of data is your burden of proof, before you agree?
That isn't a burden of proof though, which is what the question asked for.
You're basically saying that Reddit should never ban subreddits, which means that you don't even have a burden of proof for banning a subreddit. This means no matter what you're always against banning a subreddit on a privately owned website, yet you fawn at other reasons to justify it (fringe users, not enough data points, etc.)
Your proposed solution instead is that admins should police every user, when mods fail to, which just isn't scalable. Especially when the barrier to just creating a new account to bypass the ban is so low.
