"Title wave" of citations

I'm trying to figure out what to call this debate tactic. In some debates (particularly in informal textual fora, such as Facebook), I will see someone post a massive flood of citations, some relevant, some not, and then demand that their opponent be familiar with all of this material before countering their original point.

A: X is true.
B: I don't think X is true...
A: - stop right there! Have you read C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, and M? Then you have no business disagreeing with X!
(It's an, ahem, Title Wave...)

Some ideas I considered for this:
- It's really similar to a Gish Gallop, but rather than presenting too much for the opponent to refute, it's just trying to claim expertise and stop the conversation.
- "Proof by Intimidation" is usually a joke, but seems like it could almost apply, except the problem here isn't dense jargon, it's just sheer volume.
- Seems like it could be an Ad Fidentia - by attempting to get B to think they lack the relevant knowledge or expertise to approach the topic.
- It resembles Alphabet Soup except instead of using abbreviations en masse, they're using citations instead.
- It's not really an appeal to authority; A isn't defending X by saying that C through M are authorities, just that B isn't allowed to reject X until they've read all of them.
- Argument from Fast Talking almost feels right - just flooding the debate with too much to even digest, let alone argue against. But it's a text version of it, where there isn't any particular time limit and there's no judge keeping track. (I'm sure if B tried to refute X anyway, this would turn into a Gish Gallop.)

Does anyone here have an idea about what to classify this as?

I think you've pretty much run the gamut. All potentially valid or in some instances invalid classifications. Obviously, it depends on the specific discussion.
As Dr. Bo warns:

Exception: Be very careful not to confuse "deferring to an authority on the issue" with the appeal to authority fallacy. Remember, a fallacy is an error in reasoning. Dismissing the council of legitimate experts and authorities turns good skepticism into denialism. The appeal to authority is a fallacy in argumentation, but deferring to an authority is a reliable heuristic that we all use virtually every day on issues of relatively little importance. There is always a chance that any authority can be wrong, that’s why the critical thinker accepts facts provisionally. It is not at all unreasonable (or an error in reasoning) to accept information as provisionally true by credible authorities. Of course, the reasonableness is moderated by the claim being made (i.e., how extraordinary, how important) and the authority (how credible, how relevant to the claim).

The appeal to authority is more about claims that require evidence than about facts. For example, if your tour guide told you that Vatican City was founded February 11, 1929, and you accept that information as true, you are not committing a fallacy (because it is not in the context of argumentation) nor are you being unreasonable.

Good job with the considerations. You found many fallacies that contain elements of what might be going on here.

I think appeal to authority works best and here is why: A actually is defending X by saying that C through M are authorities. The response to "I don't think X is true" wouldn't be to read C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, and M unless these sources agreed that X was true. These are the "authorities" that the person must be familiar with before being allowed to participate in the discussion. We can say that the authoritative nature of these sources is presupposed rather than explicitly stated. But are these legitimate appeals to authority or fallacious?

In terms of a named fallacy for this, I don't think the overall form of the argument is necessarily fallacious. Consider a student trying to tell us about a character's motivation who hasn't read the book. In science (or academia), we might see this with a team of researchers who present conclusions based on extensive research only to have the research rejected by someone who hasn't read (or evaluated) the research. In cases like these, perhaps there is a reasonable requirement to be part of the conversation or to have your opinion taken seriously.

Having said all that, I agree that simply listing sources is a horrible idea and very often a cop out in addressing the point of disagreement. Not peculiarly a problem with reasoning, but poor communication and not a good strategy for persuasion. Personally, I get annoyed when people tell me (or others) to read a certain book in response to an argument. This is basically saying, "I can't refute your argument, but if you give this author 8-10 hours of your time, he or she can do it." :)