I'm obviously going to stay out of the content arguments so as to remain neutral.  However I did want to say that it is pleasing to see the different sides here working collaboratively towards a compromise.  It seems there has already been agreement from the main parties that a section is justified even if significantly shorter than before which seems to be a huge improvement from the time of the RfC.  This back and forth with concrete proposals and commenting only on the issue at hand rather than the editors themselves is the way forward and probably has the best chance of reaching a compromise.  If a compromise can't be reached then at least there should be better defined questions for an RfC.  If it is felt necessary to start another RfC to break a deadlock can I suggest that interested parties try to reach agreement on the RfC statement before posting it as this will be more likely to lead to a solution that everyone accepts even if it's not the one they desire.  I'd like to suggest that editors refrain from commenting on other editors and accept that they have different views.  If a compromise can't be reached on an issue I would suggest that the way forward may best be for the sides to admit this before temperatures get too hot and to leave that question for a later RfC once a full list of disagreements had been reached.  I'm in no way dictating this way forward and if the parties agree to a different way forward that will likely be better still.  I'm just trying to suggest ways to avoid what happened before.