The Bold—Refine process is the ideal collaborative writing cycle, also called the Bold—Refine—Deliver cycle, because the emphasis is on final goal of Delivering a continuously improving WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA to the readers, with WP:Consensus § Through ing achieved by multiple drafts with informative summaries that when necessary, are dialectic. A writer who persists through orial reversions by obverting them, may use the 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 orial input. Bold—Refine—Deliver prioritizes the reader first, the writer second, and the admins and bureaucrats least. "Discussion" is necessary, though subordinate, and you may read WP:What wikipedia is not, for an exhaustive proof of this.

How to refine: Do the research[]

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 by copying, 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 lazy or 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.

Dialectical refinement[]

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 summary: State the what is being removed and why, in order to meet your requirement for discussion in the summary, and invite the contributor to either refine and improve his contribution, or else re-submit it as-is, with a rebuttal in the summary that justifies his original assertion.

Explain why you are reverting[]

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 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 ing it. WP:DRWNE: Don't revert with no explanation.

How to obvert[]

As a type of reversion, the same principles, guidelines, and warnings apply to obversion: do it only when necessary. If another competent or 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 ors will be working together in a productive way.

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

In response to a dubious reversion in which the or has given an insufficient reason, you may obvert, but you must answer the or's objection in the 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.

In response to a tendentious reversion, with no reason given, you may obvert, and admonish the "or" with WP:DRWNE.

Either way, you must give justification in the summary: you must answer by explaning 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 ors in consensus-building, and will protect later you from charges of warring.

Possible ing processes[]

Rf is a refined counter-proposal. If it is self-explanatory, copy the wikitext itself into the summary, which will provide adequate justification of the refinement. De is deliver. Tp is talk page. (These outlines assume that justification is given at every Rv , Ob stage of refinement, else either or both may be considered belligerent operations.)

Editorial opinions and commentary[]

See also[]