Okay, maybe it wasn't clear enough.
I'll try again: 2.13 is a prohibitive rule, the comments to 2.13 are a permissive rule, and 2.14 is a prohibitive-permissive rule. For some reason, the defenders decided that 2.14 is the key rule with the highest authority. In reality, all rules are equal; at best, we can talk about a conflict of rules. But it's definitely not the case that "he didn't violate anything." This is the same as ignoring the additions to the rules, which are developed for different templates. And although I don't see a conflict of rules here, or rather, someone certainly sees it, and even if we assume that there is one, then the higher authority should determine the rule that has the highest authority for a specific situation, and then make changes or additions so that these conflicts do not arise.
In general, if all the rules were perfect, why would we need the Arbitration Committee? Why would we need courts if laws are in effect in the world?
Of course, we could have voted for them, but we voted for a replay. This is exactly the situation where the rules are not enough to make the decision obvious.
I'll repeat what some forum users said: no matter what the decision, some people will be unhappy. And the saddest thing is that the more time passes, the more questions and demands there will be. It's disgusting when this turns into a squabble and a circus, but it has become an integral part of the world.
By the way, in private messages, people are writing that Red is just a friend or a cool guy, and the rules, therefore, are just something to be bent, something to engage in nitpicking...