If what you need is just that "mark as patrolled" link to appear in mostly recent changes feed then you don't really need the extension. A script can do that for you, you can use the script by copying the 5th line in https://meta.miraheze.org/wiki/User:Dmehus/global.js and pasting it in your own Special:MyPage/global.js or Special:MyPage/common.js.
That's all it takes.

@Ugochimobi thanks for the plug to my global.js file. That script, though, really just provided permalink/diff links.

The patroller extension could actually a fair bit of cross-wiki appeal, so I would support installing this extension on Miraheze, as it's stabled, maintained, lightweight, and low on system resources.

Wouldn't that make it so that I'm the only one that can see the links? I'd like all wiki admins and moderators to be able to patrol pages easily.

Unsured if this extension is on a MediaWiki wiki. If so, no security review is needed. If not, it would, but would very likely pass.

In T9004#182210, @Clarasiir wrote:

Wouldn't that make it so that I'm the only one that can see the links? I'd like all wiki admins and moderators to be able to patrol pages easily.

@Clarasiir Nope. The way the extension works is you would grant the patroller user right to any local user groups you want to be able to access Special:Patrol. This would be done in ManageWiki. More details here.

In T9004#182211, @Dmehus wrote:

Unsured if this extension is on a MediaWiki wiki. If so, no security review is needed. If not, it would, but would very likely pass.

s/MediaWiki/WikiMedia but no

Right, sorry yes I do like that the extension is easy to give rights to who needs them. I was replying to @Ugochimobi and their user script suggestion.

Last commit by maintainer and that wasn't purely maintenance level change was https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki-extensions-Patroller/commit/0992f7a0c166e2ac45bbb0fdb542e9f5cce48725

In T9004#182215, @RhinosF1 wrote:

In T9004#182211, @Dmehus wrote:

Unsured if this extension is on a MediaWiki wiki. If so, no security review is needed. If not, it would, but would very likely pass.

s/MediaWiki/WikiMedia but no

Thanks for the typo spot. I won't bother correcting it, though, as it's minor, and you've already quoted me.

In T9004#182217, @RhinosF1 wrote:

Last commit by maintainer and that wasn't purely maintenance level change was https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki-extensions-Patroller/commit/0992f7a0c166e2ac45bbb0fdb542e9f5cce48725

Okay, but date alone is not necessarily indicative of approval or non-approval. This is quite a simple extension and simply doesn't require many, if any, updates, unless there were major changes to the patrolled revisions table(s).

Looking through it:

• no translatewiki support
• SQL is not abstract
• no active development in last 4.5 years
• fairly simple extensions and seems pretty well thought out in terms of avoiding any actor stuff
• I'm 50/50 on accepting this but I do have one other security concern.

In T9004#182220, @RhinosF1 wrote:

Looking through it:

• no translatewiki support

Not necessarily essential, I think.

• SQL is not abstract

Hrm?

• no active development in last 4.5 years

See above. We have a fair number of approved, low key extensions, and we've approved some that aren't very actively maintained.

• fairly simple extensions and seems pretty well thought out in terms of avoiding any actor stuff

Yep. Agreed.

• I'm 50/50 on accepting this but I do have one other security concern.

I'm about 95% on accepting it. What's your security concern?

In T9004#182221, @Dmehus wrote:

In T9004#182220, @RhinosF1 wrote:

Looking through it:

• no translatewiki support

Not necessarily essential, I think.

It's desirable given the number of non-English speakers we have

• SQL is not abstract

Hrm?

Better way of doing SQL. Not essential but most things should be moving towards it

• no active development in last 4.5 years

See above. We have a fair number of approved, low key extensions, and we've approved some that aren't very actively maintained.

RecentChanges has been moving around a lot. It's quite a risk that it could break.

• fairly simple extensions and seems pretty well thought out in terms of avoiding any actor stuff

Yep. Agreed.

• I'm 50/50 on accepting this but I do have one other security concern.

I'm about 95% on accepting it. What's your security concern?

Not going to share a security bug in a public task.

I notice some deprecated functions being used that'll definitely cause issues in the future, however, due to it being in Wikimedia Gerrit, gives me a bit more leancy to approve it. But I'm hesitant. I'll decide later when I do a full review though.

Thanks for looking into. I know you're super busy, but on the possible deprecated functions in the future, this seems like a fairly simple extension you might be able to fork and maintain possibly, if it's accepted, of course?

In T9004#182222, @RhinosF1 wrote:

In T9004#182221, @Dmehus wrote:

In T9004#182220, @RhinosF1 wrote:

Looking through it:

• no translatewiki support

Not necessarily essential, I think.

It's desirable given the number of non-English speakers we have

For Meta Wiki, yes, but this wouldn't be enabled on Meta Wiki without a local discussion. For English speaking wikis without translations, and we have a lot of those, it'd be fine, I think.

• SQL is not abstract

Hrm?

Better way of doing SQL. Not essential but most things should be moving towards it

Okay.

• fairly simple extensions and seems pretty well thought out in terms of avoiding any actor stuff

Yep. Agreed.

• I'm 50/50 on accepting this but I do have one other security concern.

I'm about 95% on accepting it. What's your security concern?

Not going to share a security bug in a public task.

Fair enough. You can share with me privately, though, no?

Fair enough. You can share with me privately, though, no?

There was no security issue after all.

In T9004#182229, @Universal_Omega wrote:

Fair enough. You can share with me privately, though, no?

There was no security issue after all.

Oh okay, great! :)

In T9004#182228, @Dmehus wrote:

In T9004#182222, @RhinosF1 wrote:

In T9004#182221, @Dmehus wrote:

In T9004#182220, @RhinosF1 wrote:

Looking through it:

• no translatewiki support

Not necessarily essential, I think.

It's desirable given the number of non-English speakers we have

For Meta Wiki, yes, but this wouldn't be enabled on Meta Wiki without a local discussion. For English speaking wikis without translations, and we have a lot of those, it'd be fine, I think.

And how about for other non-English wikis? This is why we prefer easily translatable extensions.

Oh, well that's disappointing. What should I do about the missing "mark as patrolled" link for my wiki then? I'd assumed it was related to the skin my wiki uses, but changing to different skins didn't fix the issue.

I currently have two edits automatically made by "HAWelcome" (which is an extension I've since turned off) to a newly created user page and user talk page that are marked as unpatrolled, but I have no way of patrolling them. I also will have other admins that will need to able to patrol new pages, not just edited ones.

NewPages? Ah, try Page Curation tool of the PageTriage extension, you can access all new pages from Special:NewPagesFeed, then with that you can easily mark as patrolled, mark as copyright vio, etc.
You can enable the extension at the`Special pages` tab of the Special:ManageWiki/extensions.

I do have the PageTriage extension, but while the Special:NewPagesFeed lists regular content pages, it doesn't seem to list new templates, talk pages, or user pages, as all of those - including the unpatrolled pages - are not listed.

Should I create a new, separate task for this issue?

In T9004#182268, @Universal_Omega wrote:

I just realised, I had already approved patroller once before though I reverted it being added, as it didn't seem to work. T8517#173543. Therefore must decline this task as well. I apologise for the inconvenience.

Okay, fair enough, interesting.