 ::::But is such reasoning by the arbcom a break with the past? From what I have seen, it looks like it to me. An indefinite ban from an article without supporting diffs of dispruption or violation of policies, but instead a description of edits as responsible by the arbcom strikes me as break with conventions of the arbcom. Again, I have some understanding for this because there are so many cases now, but this should be stated, I think.  