My point is that if you're going to editorialize, it shouldn't be one sided.  He chooses to "introduce" papers that are highly critical with his own commentary, but doesn't introduce papers where similarly relevant information makes cold fusion look bad.  The guy is spinning what should be plain original sources.  I don't know of any library or librarian that would modify original sources with their own comments.  I don't agree that /acrobat/ERABreportofth.pdf is "moderate" - I consider it highly prejudicial to the paper that follows.  Some of it is just plain nitpicking (i.e. the throwaway use of "simple") designed to make the authors look biased where there is no credible claim of bias from that particular passage. 

For these reasons I do not think it's appropriate to use lenr-canr to link the source of any paper.  In my opinion it's far better to not have the full source online than to have altered sources introduced with prejudice.  It's just a bad idea; it allows anyone to upload some source paper, add their own commentary to the lead and potentially tamper with other things, and use it as a source on Wikipedia instead of the typical and totally unbiased DOI links. 
 
Whether this justifies a blacklisting based on policy is another matter; it may not.  I'll take your word for the scope and purpose of the blacklist, in which I agree that blacklisting lenr-canr.org is extreme.  I'd agree that it certainly deserves a place in the external links section.   I've also found it invaluable for getting up to speed on various papers.  However, if blacklisting is the only way to stop this terribly biased source from being used as a reference, then I support it.