I just stumbled on this a bit too late to actually be able to effect it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Gre…
Summary:
-- User is sent to Arbcom for date delinking. The Arbcom remedy, however,
prohibits him from making _any style change_ that is not specified by a
style guideline.
-- Someone edits 4 out of 24 links to remove style. This user changes them
back. Result: user is blocked.
Problems with this:
-- The user was blocked for 24 additional hours because he did this after a
*mistaken* block. (Yes, really.)
-- Banning style changes is like banning use of the letter "Z". It bans a
huge number of things that are not abuse and puts stumbling blocks where normal
activity now turns into violation of an Arbcom remedy.
-- The blocking admin decided that "because Arbitration Committee decisions
are binding, we cannot review this restriction here on its merits, but must
enforce it." The idea of common sense seems to completely escape some admins.
-- This decision apparently runs on the principle that the user must himself
describe the style guideline that his action meets. Lots of people do things
that follow rules without being able to name the rule. The blocking admin
obviously didn't make a good faith effort to determine himself if a style
guideline was involved, rather than saying that the user is guilty because
he hasn't named one. It took me only a few minutes to find a style
guideline that demands consistency and makes this action legal.