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@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@lists.wikimedia.org>


On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Ariel T. Glenn <ariel@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 van 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), 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@gmail.com




--
André Engels, andreengels@gmail.com