<How is it possible to identify Wikipedia writers as chessgames posters?>

I read the Wikipedia entry. The words "Polgar" and "Webster" do not appear at all.

Would it be considered sabotage to mention Susan Polgar's or Webster University's roles in his career?

There is. You (or they, rather) can look up which editor logs in to make changes, and what changes they have made. An editor can also track what changes they have made, and if someone changes it.

As for here at CeeGee, I would also like to know why they are not in his bio. Does Wesley have control of his bio?

It seems somebody has been making minor grammatical edits lately. Good on them.

Somewhat related, I archived my interview for Neues Deutschland here: http://www.chessgames.com/neues_deu.... (FYI: the interview was conducted in English and translated.)

This is related because if something could be gleaned from the interview and added to the page it would help establish what Wikipedia holds important, the "relevance of the website as demonstrated by non-internet sources."

It's somewhat of an honor for a website to be in Wikipedia, and years back there was a call to have the page removed on the (untrue) basis that all of the footnotes were internal links. One more in-print citation should nail that coffin shut for good.

This created a bit of a kerfuffle last year with some users saying it was a form of censorship/revisionism. That might be true, were it not for the fact that the biography is still 100% open to all CG editors just like any other.

The Unofficial World Championship Match in Fischer Random between Hikaru Nakamura and Magnus Carlsen will be held at Høvikodden outside Oslo in Norway, from 9-13 February 2018.

Nakamura is the "reigning champion" from the last unofficial championship, which was held in 2009.

<zborris8> sharp eye, they were last on Wayback in Dec 2017.

The site has gone offline for several days, only to return, in the past.

How long have you noticed them offline?

I have no issue with any of the things you have done, they seem reasonable. But what you need know, if it isn't obvious already, is that So does not directly maintain his web page or decides on the policy, he delegates those tasks to others. Which is his right, but those others do not necessarily act responsibly according to the principles and intents of <chessgames.com>.

For example, you have explicit posting guidelines. Those that presumably violate those guidelines are reported to you, and you look into these supposed violations. Sometimes they are just a reflection of personal animosity between two posters and sometimes they are relatively trivial in nature and best overlooked. Sometimes they are serious and need to be dealt with by deleting the violating posts, warning the posters, and if the violations persist, canceling the offending poster's posting privileges. And even then the cancellation of their posting privileges is usually temporary; you rescind it after a reasonable length of time and monitor (or have other posters monitor) that offending poster's new posts and only rescind their posting privileges permanently if they still continue to violate your posting guidelines.

To me that is a reasonable and responsible approach. But contrast this with the apparent "policies" concerning the Wesley So page. There are no additional guidelines other than the apparent guideline that unless you are a fervent supporter of So AND fully agree with the influential posters on Wesley So page, you will be banned from posting there.

Take this recent post from <amulet>: Wesley So (kibitz #214309). Translated using Google Translate it means "The handle "kapmigs" is banned here. I have suggested that it be forbidden here. That's right. <Joselito Oliveros> that's a crap". Which, to me, seems like a violation of your posting guideline #3, "No personal attacks against other users."

It seems that posters are banned from the Wesley So page based on the "suggestions" of some of its most influential posters, with no consideration or attempt at verification if indeed those "suggestions" are based on anything else than failure of those banned posters to unconditionally praise So to extremes, sometimes rationalizing to extremes his less than expected (demanded?) good performance, or to be critical in any way (though still adhering to <chessgames.com>'s posting guidelines of some of its most influential posters.