Re : CipherBot 
Hi. Thanks for your interest in CipherBot. Yes, I use Pywikipediabot for programming some functions, and I also prepared a few templates using AWB to run some other minor maintenance tasks. Unfortunately, I am not publishing the code right now as it is still underdevelopment, and it is not yet optimized in a good shape. What does the new pages review bot is simply to go over the list of all new pages and check their texts. It checks again some criteria (five by now) and defines problems with each article, next it adds maintenance template in the article page, notify the user who created it about these problems, and make a log entry based on its topic, and problems. The community liked the idea as we spend a few months debugging and testing it, however I often receive messages from new users asking me to stop the bot from "ruining their articles". By the way, I like your Simone proposal, and I might borrow some ideas for developing my code and testing it soon. Let`s keep in touch. --Ciphers (talk) 05:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Coordination costs 
I think that you've got a challenging problem to define coordination costs. I've left some notes in reply to you on my the Talk page of my research project at meta. Regarding the User:OrenBochman#Coordination parts, I figured it would be better to reply here.
First, even though I'm a little familiar with game theory, I hadn't heard the phrase "stag hunt game" before. So I was interested to learn about that. Based on this: "The stag hunt differs from the Prisoner's Dilemma in that there are two Nash equilibria: when both players cooperate and both players defect.", and since I think the prisoner's dilemma is very well known, I think that a more effective way to introduce it would be "a variant on the Prisoner's dilemma called the "stag hunt", which has two w:Nash equilibria. One occurs when both players cooperate; the other occurs when both players defect." Then I would go on to explain what the payoff matrix means; some people won't have seen these before, so a symmetric example (which is simpler) might be easier for people to digest first. (I assume in this that you're trying, in part, to explain -- if you're just trying to work out your theories in public, these didactic suggestions may not matter!)
When you say "this does not look like it is modeling the coordination challenge."--do you mean, you don't think that this is a good model? I agree.
The distinction between MicroCosmic Coordination and Political Coordination is interesting. First I'd point out that the typical AfD is 7 days (though these can be extended for multiple 7-day periods, and some discussions close earlier, particularly under CSD, snow keeps, etc.). Do you think that establishing coalitions is necessary/useful?
What you say here is *particularly* interesting. Examples would be helpful: Afd discussions - seem to have 2+ modes of closing. Fast (closely related and very similar to CSD) - do not require MicroCosmic Coordination Slow with a good likely hood of repeated coordination failures - MicroCosmic failures oft lead to relisting (extending the deadline), while political failures leads to no consensus at closure, multiple Afd of the same article over long timeframes.
Is there any chance that you'll be at WikiSym? The call for posters and demos is open until June 8th, and I think this could be really relevant.
It's also interesting to look at the points that require more looking into in your list.
- ad hoc coalitions from repeated participation (how do you define/detect a coalition?)
- coordination cost seems to come in part from the impact (positive or negative) of people not being "on the same page". This can fail from a coordination/communication perspective without impacting the outcome of the discussion -- for instance (e.g. w:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mike_Emmett and w:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/UK_Airsoft_Wiki) when a newcomer doesn't understand the policies but quits the discussion. But high coordination costs can help increase newcomers' understanding of policies, which may lead to improved consensus and better editing later (e.g. w:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hugh_Allison w:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/St._Andrew's_Episcopal_School_(Amarillo,_Texas))
I think that the kind of coordination cost that needs to be avoided is when a discussion gets reopened without new information. In these cases people articulate the reopening as a problem: "The original AFD was closed earlier this month, and absolutely nothing has changed." (e.g. w:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Best_of_The_Velvet_Underground:_The_Millennium_Collection_(2nd_nomination). Yet reopening is not always a bad thing, when the article has changed significantly or when there were insufficient comments the first time around.
Hi! Thanks for the suggestion but I don't think I can be much of a help with regards to enwiki templates. I'm not familiar with them, or the way they work. I rarely edit enwiki anyways. My template experience is only with huwiki specific templates, mainly infoboxes. Teemeah (talk) 11:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)