If you are trying to say that there are people who claim to be skeptics and aren't, then we have no disagreement. Are you attacking them or the idea of skepticism itself?
If the idea, the goal (for want of a better word)is to look at the idea being proposed in a fairly specific way. There is (or should be) no hidden agenda - just a desire to determine whether the idea stands on it's on merits (generally as it relates to the scientific method and the body of knowledge generate by same) or not. When it moves beyond that, you edge over into show biz where another logical fallacy comes in to play - that of style over substance.
People who claim to be skeptics and aim their attack at the individual rather than the claim may call themselves skeptics but clearly aren't. Their claim, to restate, invalidates them.
Now this may be purely a matter of semantics but reading (and re-reading) it's not entirely clear what point you want to make and about who you are making them.
My confusion may come because, to me, critical thinking and skepticism are the same thing. You seem to feel that if someone claims to be a skeptic, then they are one, despite evidence to the contrary? Skepticism questions (or should) everything, including its own nature.