Community Wishlist Survey 2017/Admins and stewards/Allow protection of multiple pages (from the same Category)

Random proposal ►◄ Admins and stewards

Allow protection of multiple pages (from the same Category)

Problem: Currently pages have to be protected one-by one. If there is a specific topic that is being vandalized or anything else to warrant protection, it would be nice if all the articles in that topic (or Category) could all be protected by one click.

Who would benefit: Administrators who need to protect various pages from the same topic by doing one at a time

Proposed solution: Add an option to allow administrators to be able to protect all pages from the same Category (or another criteria)

More comments:

Phabricator tickets:

Proposer: Reception123 (talk) 06:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Translations: none yet

Discussion

English Wikipedia has a tool called Twinkle; a quick test shows that the "p-batch" option does the job for a category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting

Support David1010 (talk) 07:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No nuke buttons in a collaborative environment, please. --TMg 12:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is no reason to replace ban with bulk protection.--YFdyh000 (talk) 13:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support although this would probably only be suited for Commons and Wikidata. Jc86035 (talk) 14:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gripweed (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thomas Obermair 4 (talk) 21:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Shizhao (talk) 02:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose protection, just like block, is always an exceptional solution, better to suggest a cautious case-specific approach to these tools. --g (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Bulk protection" may only make sense in case of "massive" trolling or vandalic operations made by several unregistered users all together at a time. Never faced this kind of issue so far. Categories may encompass hundreds of articles: this tool would potentially block any cooperative actions on large parts of the project in one shot. Too strong and too much against the "Free Encyclopedia" principle.--L736E ^{tell me} 07:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per g and L736E. --Superchilum^{(talk to me!)} 16:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is no reason for protecting a whole section of Wikipedia. -Theklan (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per g. Wostr (talk) 10:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ~Cybularny ^Speak? 12:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ented (talk) 12:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Could be very dangerous if works also for subcategories. --Termininja (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per g. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 17:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Protecting an entire category would usually be massive overkill. And as categorization frequently changes, it might be impossible to undo once it's no longer needed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ciao • Bestoernesto • ✉ 02:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose overkill --OlEnglish ^(Talk) 06:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as is overkill - Instead of protecting every article in that category we can just block the idiot vandalising .... this way has worked for 10 years .... no need to change it now. –Davey2010^Talk 15:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support but with caution and after another admin has "signed it off" for want of a better term. Lugnuts (talk) 18:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Zppix (talk) 14:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]