I consider blocking users from creating pages one of the most useful partial blocks. I'd appreciate it if cswiki could be one of the pilot wikis – let me know when I should ask my community about it.

Also do note that tawiki did create a similar feature via wgRevokePermissions and user groups, see T227618 and:

MariaDB [tawiki_p]> select ug_group, count(*) from user_groups group by ug_group order by count(*) desc;
+-----------------+----------+
| ug_group        | count(*) |
+-----------------+----------+
| bot             |      187 |
| autopatrolled   |       36 |
| sysop           |       34 |
| nocreate        |       30 |
| rollbacker      |       16 |
| patroller       |       15 |
| accountcreator  |        4 |
| bureaucrat      |        4 |
| interface-admin |        1 |
| ipblock-exempt  |        1 |
| flow-bot        |        1 |
+-----------------+----------+
11 rows in set (0.00 sec)

MariaDB [tawiki_p]>

It might be useful to reach out to them and ask if they'd be interested in trying this out.

Please remember that T280808 should be resolved before enabling on production non-test wikis (per that task description, "We could go ahead with the second option while we're just testing with a handful of actions on beta, but we should decide which solution to implement before enabling on production sites.")

In T280531#7105165, @DannyS712 wrote:

Please remember that T280808 should be resolved before enabling on production non-test wikis (per that task description, "We could go ahead with the second option while we're just testing with a handful of actions on beta, but we should decide which solution to implement before enabling on production sites.")

Hey Danny. Our team bandwidth is a bit low at the moment. We will probably stay with the second option unless we see issues with it. We can come back and work on implementing the table option in the future when we have more time on our hands. Does that sound acceptable to you?

In T280531#7112240, @Niharika wrote:

In T280531#7105165, @DannyS712 wrote:

Please remember that T280808 should be resolved before enabling on production non-test wikis (per that task description, "We could go ahead with the second option while we're just testing with a handful of actions on beta, but we should decide which solution to implement before enabling on production sites.")

Hey Danny. Our team bandwidth is a bit low at the moment. We will probably stay with the second option unless we see issues with it. We can come back and work on implementing the table option in the future when we have more time on our hands. Does that sound acceptable to you?

I think that the longer we wait to make a decision, the harder it would be to implement if the decision is to use a table - if the current thinking is "stay with the second option unless we see issues with it" perhaps just resolve T280808 saying that?

In T280531#7113982, @DannyS712 wrote:

In T280531#7112240, @Niharika wrote:

In T280531#7105165, @DannyS712 wrote:

Please remember that T280808 should be resolved before enabling on production non-test wikis (per that task description, "We could go ahead with the second option while we're just testing with a handful of actions on beta, but we should decide which solution to implement before enabling on production sites.")

Hey Danny. Our team bandwidth is a bit low at the moment. We will probably stay with the second option unless we see issues with it. We can come back and work on implementing the table option in the future when we have more time on our hands. Does that sound acceptable to you?

I think that the longer we wait to make a decision, the harder it would be to implement if the decision is to use a table - if the current thinking is "stay with the second option unless we see issues with it" perhaps just resolve T280808 saying that?

@Tchanders what do you think? We can decline T280808 for now and come back to it if and when we see a need for it?

Hey @Niharika, 17 May was a while ago :-). Would it be possible to get this live at cswiki?

Where are we with this? Just wondering about T280532: Remove partial action blocks feature flag, and relation to MW-1.37-release.

If we want to bump this out to MW-1.38-release (or eventually some later release) due to it not being ready/tested enough (due to the team having to work on other stuff) that's fine, but we do need to update the text in DefaultSettings.php at least :)

Yep, this isn't ready yet. We are still testing it. Should be bumped to 1.38.

No problem, thanks for confirming. I'll change the code comment :)

Change 726721 had a related patch set uploaded (by Jforrester; author: Jforrester):

[mediawiki/core@master] DefaultSettings: Note that wgEnablePartialActionBlocks is retained for REL1_37

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/726721

Change 726599 had a related patch set uploaded (by Reedy; author: Jforrester):

[mediawiki/core@REL1_37] DefaultSettings: Note that wgEnablePartialActionBlocks is retained for REL1_37

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/726599

Change 726599 merged by jenkins-bot:

[mediawiki/core@REL1_37] DefaultSettings: Note that wgEnablePartialActionBlocks is retained for REL1_37

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/726599

Change 726721 merged by jenkins-bot:

[mediawiki/core@master] DefaultSettings: Note that wgEnablePartialActionBlocks is retained for REL1_37

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/726721

In T280531#7404176, @Niharika wrote:

Yep, this isn't ready yet. We are still testing it. Should be bumped to 1.38.

Hello, a friendly reminder :). How is this going? 1.38 was released a while ago :-)).