The Bold-Refine process is the ideal collaborative writing cycle, which seeks WP:Consensus § Through editing in continuously improving multiple drafts, with informative edit summaries which are dialectical responses to challenges or errors pointed out by deletionists who revert. A writer who persists through editorial reversions by obverting them, may use the edit summary field to meet the requirement of discussion, instead of or prior to "talking" on the talk page. The writer should accompany their argument with multiple drafts of wikitext itself, progressively refined in response to competent editorial input. Also called Bold-Refine-Deliver, because the emphasis is on final goal of Delivering a continuously improving WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA to the readers, while refining ourselves as scholars and learners who read what each other writes. Every editor should be reader-student first: someone who enjoys learning, and researcher-writer second: someone who is willing to teaching what he or she knows.

This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

This page in a nutshell: Clarifies a method of collaborative drafting that helps contributors and writers to craft good articles, while building consensus and trust through demonstration of competence. Seeks consensus to replace WP:BRDR as a recommendation, and proposes a preventive strategy favoring Refinement and enables wp:Bold wp:obversion, in order to overcome unjustified wp:reversions.

In response to a WP:Bold contribution that may be incomplete, poorly worded, or unreferenced, consider how you can preserve the good content and WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Try to refine the bold edit by copyediting, finding references, or adding material.

If someone contributes a plausible but uncited claim, do the research! In the age of online information, you should take at least 20 seconds to do a web search before reverting. If the claim is justifiable, but you are too busy to afford the ~2 minutes necessary to justify it with a citation, then simply add a {{citation needed}} template. Or ask the question {{who?}}, or {{where?}}. Give the contributor time to justify the claim, at least a couple hours, and maybe even a couple days or weeks. Readers in the meantime will know that the claim is {{dubious}}, and if you ask, maybe one of them will {{clarify}}. If you are unable or unwilling to refine an imperfect but constructive contribution, consider doing nothing. Maybe someone else will do the research. In any case, the encyclopedia will survive without you.

If during this process, you intend to remove substantive assertions that amount to a change in meaning, it is better to use a Partial reversion, so as to notify the original contributor. Retain the part of the contribution that is acceptable, while giving an adequate edit summary: State the what is being removed and why, in order to meet your requirement for discussion in the edit summary, and invite the contributor to either refine and improve his contribution, or else re-submit it as-is, with a rebuttal in the edit summary that justifies his original assertion.

WP:Revert only when necessary, and if you do, you must explain why. If partial revert or refinement isn't possible, and if you must do a complete revert, state the reason in the edit summary, so that the contributor can respond to your objections while making a case in discussion, as per WP:BRD. The reversion must itself be a form of "discussion", else it is mere wp:status quo stonewalling. Refusal to address the substantive content question in a revert summary, is tendentious laziness, which is sufficient grounds for obversion, as it increases friction, discourages newcomers, and reduces the overall quality of the encyclopedia and pleasure of editing it. WP:DRWNE: Don't revert with no explanation.

As a type of reversion, the same principles, guidelines, and warnings apply to obversion: do it only when necessary. If another competent editor has made a partial reversion, it is better to submit a second draft as a new contribution rather than as an obversion. That way, both editors will be working together in a productive way.

In response to a competent reversion, in which the editor has given a sufficient reason in the edit summary, you must modify your contribution and submit a second draft. In the edit summary, respond to the editor's reason for the revert, so that adequate discussion and coordination can take place.

In response to a dubious reversion in which the editor has given an insufficient reason, you may obvert, but you must answer the editor's objection in the edit summary, by stating why you hold it to be insufficient. Use the opportunity to refine your own contribution, if possible, and boldly submit a second draft.

Either way, you must give justification in the edit summary: you must answer by explaining why you are obverting, even if the reverter has failed to do so. This demonstrates a good-faith effort to engage in a dialectic process. It will also help to set an example for other editors in consensus-building, and will protect you later from charges of edit-warring.

In the below descriptions of editing processes,

• "Bo" refers to a bold edit;
• "Rf" refers to submitting a refined counter-proposal (if a refinement is self-explanatory, copy the wikitext itself into the edit summary, which will provide adequate justification of the refinement);
• "Rv" refers to a reversion;
• "Ob" refers to an obversion;
• "De" means "deliver", meaning the point at which a continuously-improving encyclopedia is delivered to readers; and
• "Tp" refers to discussion happening on the talk page.

These outlines assume that justification is given at every Rv and Ob stage of refinement, or else either or both may be considered belligerent operations.

• Bo De (Presumed good)
• Bo Tp (Good but uncommon)
• BoTp Rv (Good but uncommon. This is Bold-Discuss-Revert, and the vandal fighters ought to be required to do this with newbies)
• BoRfRf ... De (best)
• BoRv Tp (Not bad, but not good. This is how we often bite the newcomers (please don't), and sometimes get paralysed in discussion.)
• BoRvTp De (Good. This is WP:BRD, when it results in consensus and someone is able to deliver.)
• BoRvOb De (Good, if done appropriately. If you are unsure whether to obvert though, it is best to go with one of the other options.)
• BoRvObRf De (Better)
• BoRvObRf Tp (Advanced discussion)
• BoRvObRvOb Rf, Tp, or De (All acceptable ways of drafting and advancing discussion, but ...)
• Beyond this is edit war, which is not ok.

• Editing policy
• WP:BRB, other options for good faith dispute resolution