To what extent are ostensibly parodical/absurdist movie reviews allowed on IMDb?

I noticed this so-called 'review' for The Adventures of Huck Finn (1993) by one richsonrichardson. It looks completely nonsensical to me, like a feverish stream of consciousness from a mind akin to Lewis Carroll's Jabberwocky by way of John Lennon's creative butchering of news reports and the like. Potentially offensive too, if you read between the lines. But perhaps I'm being far too literal-minded, and can't appreciate a good (sick) joke? Perhaps I just don't get "it"?

As per your User Review Guidelines:

Reviews that are not specific to the title will not be posted on our site. Please write in English only.

I'd like to hear the IMDb editors' take on this.

Quote from the review:

Benjo's Bad Zone just got a liiiitle bit interesting!

Thank you to Big Dog Diggle for donating 2 dig dogs to our Big Diggle dog Patron charity account for child and sons, for that he gets 1 free dig doggles sent straight to the nasty nebula of child sadness for almost free on wednesdays of my choosing. NO REFUNDS!

The film casts mostly goblin sharks, which is quite out of place in this age of gremlins and goblin gnomes.

This must be an early Swomp Roberts because his Huck Bulge was showing for almost the whole filmograph. It's well-known that the Christian Tuggers were trying to indoctrination kid particles and the rest of them meats in the big meats and the meats in the middle.

We munch on the tubby marvin twins more than we used to because it's the Old Film.

The film is mostly about me, Richson Richardson, and how I stole my family. Piece by piece. Until I had enough to afford a wife with a couple of knees short of a sandwich pickle syndrome?

Etc.