Not unless it was oversighted and scrubbed from the deletion log, which is unlikely. To answer the question in this topic, probably not. But it is not impossible, more likely a staffer might, or any other supporter. I'd consider that normal on Wikipedia, happens all the time. If there is a problem, it would be from lack of attention. The whole insanity about paid editing was based on the structure being unreliable. Otherwise, one would want to see professional editors working on articles!
I argued on WP that experts should be declared COI. Which was ridiculed because, to them, COI meant Block As Soon As Discovered. But it would really mean that articles should be reliably sourced, and discussed by people who actually know the topic. So COI editors would only be strongly prevented from editing in a controversial way, but COI people tend to know sources and what sources mean better than the average editor. But regular editors should approach any COI ideas with skepticism. Prove it with reliable sources! Prove to whom? Neutral editors without an axe to grind. Wikipedia could have become reliable with reliable structure.
The realpolitik of Wikipedia is that the community is not trusted to reliably field POV pushing, so better block anyone with a POV. I.e., all experts, if one were fair! Damn experts tend to be opinionated! And of course, common editor opinion is not even recognized as POV. It's just "normal."
Looking at the contributions of
Pete Streeling, looks to me like someone who might know Buttigieg, or is simply local to him. Perhaps went to the same high school or college.
This is all tempest in a teapot, all based on the idea that someone editing with a conflict of interest is only somewhat better than tossing babies out the window. Compare an editor who loves a candidate (whether or not employed or being a friend -- which also technically creates COI) with one who hates the candidate. Does the latter have a COI? I have never seen that claimed, but it would be just as damaging to Wikipedia process.
Why all this fuss about Buttigeig and Wikipedia? It's obvious. Politics. Searching for mud to toss. Everything that is worthy of disgust about politics. Don't buy it! Yes, if the campaign is lying, that would be a moral issue, of some weight, but look at the effing context! (And "it's the cover-up, stupid." Is Buttigeig stupid? Really? If I were advising them, and Streeling actually was working for the campaign, I'd recommend admitting it ASAP, without hesitation, and dealing with the reality. Most people would think "so effing what?") But "lied" can have legs, if there is a basis, but there is no basis here but a pile of semblances with a far more obvious explanation.
"Pete Streeling" is likely an alias. The last name is at least rare if not absent entirely. But Wikipedia encourages this (one of the unnecessary original Bad Ideas that had a purpose that could have been handled without all the insanities. Quora does very well requiring real name accounts. Wikipedia could have required real name
accounts allowing limited privileges for IP editing. I.e, anonymous whistleblowers can blow the whistle, but cannot participate in decision-making other than like any anonymous phone caller and the police. (And in certain special cases, anonymous accounts might be allowed -- with supervision!)