Where do you see any evidence of the author trying to alter Wikipedia to promote fringe science?

You list RationalWiki as the "other side of the story", yet did you note that article was written by the same editors he encountered on Wikipedia?

If you spend more time on the site, you will see that the case study involved intentional patience and only focused on non controversial biographical information.

You appear to suggest that the context of the biographies the author was editing on means he was promoting or editing false or misleading information, and therefore perhaps deserved the treatment.