The bandwagon fallacy is a fallacy where you leverage agreeable individuals as the proof towards your thesis. What you said was in the spirit of “I must be right, because I can find others agreeing directly with my statement,” which is equally as flawed as tying the quality of a product to its sales figures or the views it got on YouTube or the money it made in the Box Office. Since you were trying to provide proof for your statement the rebuttal of the bandwagon fallacy is accurate.
As far as using articles being “part of a bandwagon,” that logical fallacy is known as tu quoque. It’s a self-defeating argument that says that I am incorrect because I am doing the exact same thing (whether I am or not). You used the same flawed argument in the other thread claiming your personal anecdote was the same as saying authored work on the subject. A proper argument would describe the flaws in the work, using counter examples from your own (lacking) citations.
Now as far as arguing that you have the same expertise as authored work, that’s just old-fashioned incorrect unless you can cite credentials on the subject. However, your initial entrance into the topic was to ask for evidence that the problem exists at all, which is a claim to ignorance on the topic and not expertise.
And skipping down to rebuttals, saying you are employing logical fallacies are indeed a valid argument. The burden is not on me to prove you are wrong, that’s trying to shift the burden justifying your thesis onto someone else. I did not supply the thesis, you did. It is your burden to convince others you have sound reasoning to suggest why what your are saying makes sense. In the conversation about school dress codes you used a laundry list of illogical claims to support a thesis you were only afforded yourself to imply and not state outright.
What you are describing in my actions that your find offensive is my unwillingness to critique your posts, which as far as dress codes are concerned I still have little desire to do so. This isn’t the first time that after a lengthy trail of fallacious logic you ended up claiming to be the victim of perceived ad hominem attacks, so this dialogue might open your eyes a bit. I, as little as you care to admit it, refuted your posts in a way you did not like. You never challenged my reasoning, you just reaffirmed positions using more fallacies that’s built on top of each other. The only direct attempt to refute me was to declare me performing ad hominem against you and posting in an aggressive tone - and here is where you are partially correct. I absolutely used a combative tone, just like you are here - but as you can see I have decided to engage you with the intention to opening a proper critique of your own style that turns others off.
As for the ad hominem, that still requires me making an attack against you as a person and not the words you are putting in place in your posts. For example, calling my posts pedantic squealing is a form of an ad hominem attack - especially if you have to use an outside justification of “your tone wasn’t correct for an arguement” or “the moderators decided to favor you” to justify the use of what you know to be insulting in the same post.