Are you saying Wikipedia's definition of ad hominem is wrong? It clearly says attacking a person's character or other attribute rather than the argument itself. A person's track record of mistakes is surely part of their character. A person's history agreement with others is too.

These really aren't compelling arguments. It's easy to call a crank a crank and dismiss him, but it's not easy to show why he's wrong. skeptics won't be satisfied with the personal attack that ignores the substance of the argument.