User talk:Ihj2021

Draft:Jeff Kennard

Hello, Ihj2021. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, Draft:Jeff Kennard.

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ihj2021. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Mz7 (talk) 03:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal Request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ihj2021 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I should be unblocked as I was simply following guidelines set in Wikipedia essays on both irrelevance and unsourced materials. The article on Allen West included information on ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine stating that they were not approved. However there was no source supporting this claim. Following this, an edit and source were added to say that these treatments "don't have a proven track record of success". This statement however is merely the source authors opinion as there have been multiple studies conducted that have provided positive results. This source is also unreliable as its authors have no professional medical training. Furthermore, even with proper wording and sourcing these statements are absolutely irrelevant as a personal page is no place for editors to argue for or against alternative treatments to covid 19. Wikipedia is meant to be a neutral encyclopedia and for editorial opinions to be added makes it hardly any different from an op-ed piece in the news. Neutrality in the case of Allen West's treatment would be to include no further statement on ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine. For a site that focuses on so called neutrality, allowing medical opinions of non medical writers and editors is astounding.

Decline reason:

This is not relevant. You are blocked for violating WP:SOCK. That and only that, not your WP:FRINGE viewpoints, are relevant here. Yamla (talk) 10:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Arguments can be made against alternative treatments for covid 19, and they can also be made for alternative treatments. But that's not what I'm trying to do. For the sake of neutrality and eliminating personal biases, there should be no mention of individual treatments success as they are irrelevant and can be highly opinion based Ihj2021 (talk) 09:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]