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