We were told an individual was gloating that they paid to have this listing deleted to burn her. The first nomination that occurred on 14th by a loose neck tie. (We didnt investigate the second yet) To no surprise the original deletion came from a sockpuppet account from unknown origin that - surprise- has a large history of deleting , not adding. Also - surprise again - A user who made hundreds of advanced edits but their account was relatively new.

What are the chances someone was gloating to have paid for removal service and a sockpuppet account removed the listing?

Regardless of the rationale, wikipedia has been clear to accept playmate of the month centerfolds as having their own wikipedia page. Not to mention official sports illustrated swimsuit models as being accepted as well. This person is both - which is a feat few celebrities have made - while also being notable in other ways. It is absurd this user is the only one of any if these categories being discriminated against. Its absolutely clear what's going on here and all deletions from the original deleter should be investigated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:9302:2D9E:1487:1344:E07B:A9F3 (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We were told an individual was gloating that they paid to have this listing deleted to burn her. The first nomination that occurred on 14th by a loose neck tie. (We didnt investigate the second yet) To no surprise the original deletion came from a sockpuppet account from unknown origin that - surprise- has a large history of deleting , not adding. Also - surprise again - A user who made hundreds of advanced edits but their account was relatively new.

What are the chances someone was gloating to have paid for removal service and a sockpuppet account removed the listing?

Regardless of the rationale, wikipedia has been clear to accept playmate of the month centerfolds as having their own wikipedia page. Not to mention official sports illustrated swimsuit models as being accepted as well. This person is both - which is a feat few celebrities have made - while also being notable in other ways. It is absurd this user is the only one of any if these categories being discriminated against. Its absolutely clear what's going on here and all deletions from the original deleter should be investigated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:9302:2D9E:1487:1344:E07B:A9F3 (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it appears the original delete was snuck in by a "sock puppet". While the original Kirby Griffin page has been in place for about 7 years and it's page included dropins by established members. All that time passing so many experienced eyes and meeting the criteria other wikipedia pages have held for Playmates of the month and official S.I. girls of the year. it was only a "sock puppet" as it was described above who submitted a delete. No one else agreed to delete and it was done in a blink of the eye like a real delete pro.

However, there is no question that the second nomination came from an established user with no ill intent so let's not group the paid service "sock puppet" and the second established user together. I want to make that clear that bad users give the good users a bad reputation just by standing next to them so need to not allow that to occur here. The second user was noticing a page adjustment (they see thousands so cant know every detail on the back story of each one) and it's on other users to inform them on this page details that the original deleter somehow got away with in their fast deletion. No doubt the sock puppet account is a pro at deleting as you can see from their page but that doesnt give them the right to delete established pages with long history of precedent in the two categories mentioned Playboy/S.I. Wikkot

A deeper search clearly shows this is a sock puppet account. I present to you the user logs of: a loose necktie The search term "deletion" appears 60 times on their contributions and many other lines have shown thousands of words deleted from pages when he didn't send them to delete. You will also see advanced edits being performed on his very first edits. There are gaps between heavy spray usage consistent with fielding multiple accounts with a relatively new account having had been created. How was he able to avoid banning?

Looking at it more closely we can see why they would choose one specific account to focus on heavy removals. Once a page is deleted is it difficult for all non wikki-savvy users to find the record of any changelogs from a deleted page. So he can go in, wipe a page, go out and not risk his other major edits being banished - whatever they may be on another account.

We are attempting to find out what website this person paid in order to bring down the entire group of paid gun wiki editors. 100% fact an individual has affirmatively stated they paid to wipe Kirby Griffin so if the original deleter is just a coincidence or not remains to be seen.

It is well established any one of the accomplishments by Kirby Griffin has met the threshold of having a wiki page like her counter parts from being an actress in House, being the only real life Black Barbie recognized by Mattel, an official Playboy Miss September, official annual S.I. swimsuit model and more and her page has been recognized for over 7 years before this sponsored attack. It is suspicious this was chosen but all the other wikis who shared her accolades in history were not deleted even when most only have one accoldate of this size to their name. The focus should be on investigating how a "sock puppet" account has been able to get away with fielding multiple accounts and the backstory behind all the deletions and damage that has been done to wikipedia from these removals. Wikkot

• This is all too absurd to justify an answer. If the subject is notable, then great. I really don't care that much. The accusations and personal attacks and unsubstantiated claim that I was somehow paid to "gun down" the article... Wow. Just, wow. A loose necktie (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul." Sulfurboy (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]