It seems somewhere along the way pywikipedia-l got removed, therefore
forwarding this message, which might be interesting: The problem seems to
not be bot-specific, if it happened that a 'normal' user got to the page
before a bot, he would have seen something very unusual too.
André Engels
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Andre Engels <andreengels(a)gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:13 AM
Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] serious interwiki.py issues on MW 1.18 wikis
To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Ariel T. Glenn <ariel(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Out of curiosity... If the new revisions of one of
these badly edited
pages are deleted, leaving the top revision as the one just before the
bad iw bot edit, does a rerun of the bot on the page fail?
I did a test, and the result was very interesting, which might point to the
cause of this bug:
I deleted the page [[nl:Blankenbach]], then restored the 2 versions before
the problematic bot edit. When now I look at the page, instead of the page
content I get:
In de database is geen inhoud aangetroffen voor de pagina met .
Dit kan voorkomen als u een verouderde verwijzing naar het verschil tussen
twee versies van een pagina volgt of een versie opvraagt die is verwijderd.
Als dit niet het geval is, hebt u wellicht een fout in de software gevonden.
Maak hiervan melding bij een
systeembeheerder<http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciaal:Gebruikerslijst/s…
Wikipedia en vermeld daarbij de URL van deze pagina.
Going to the specific version that after the deletion-and-partial-restore
should be the newest (
http://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blankenbach&oldid=10676248)248), it
claims that there is a newer version, but going to the newer version or the
newest version, I get the abovementioned message again.
As an extra test, I did the
delete-then-restore-some-versions-but-not-the-most-recent action with
another page (
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gebruiker:Andre_Engels/Test), and
there I found no such problem. From this I conclude that the bug has not
been caused by that process, but that for some reason the page had a wrong
(or empty) version number for its 'most recent' version, or something like
that.
--
André Engels, andreengels(a)gmail.com
--
André Engels, andreengels(a)gmail.com