I saw that user creation log and that does seem to me to be persuasive
evidence, but persuasive evidence may not be conclusive proof. Carl Sagan
said that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagan_standard>", and I understand if people
would like evidence that is more verifiable to the public than a CU's
testimony, especially keeping in mind that hoaxes have been a problem on
English Wikipedia
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia>.
However, I also think that "assume good faith
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith>" applies here,
and I am mindful of another user who said that people made demands for
proof of their authenticity in a way that sounded to me like the
interrogators' primary motivation was harassment. Perhaps "Trust, but verify
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust,_but_verify>" fits how I'm thinking
about this. The currently available evidence wouldn't be enough for me to
feel comfortable with sending out a press release, but internally (in
Wikimedia spaces) I would be happy to celebrate good news if this person is
able and willing to publicly associate the Wikipedia account with their
identity as an astronaut.
Pine
(
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )