There are a ton of places on the internet that list fallacies (though I'm not sure how many of them actually claim to be comprehensive), but there are some that I don't think I've ever heard named or talked about. Here are a few relating to citations. (Well, technically the first one is invalid argumentation rather than a true logical fallacy, but whatever.)
The Fake Citation Fallacy: Claiming that a source had said something without providing any reason for your opponent to believe you. Example: two catholics are having an argument about abortion, and one of them says "Yeah well the church says it's okay", without saying where or in what document the church has said that. No, the burden is not on your opponent to go digging through source material looking for it. If you're going to make an argument that depends on external sources, at least give your opponent an easy way to look it up.
This fallacy is even worse when it's taken to an extent I call the Vague Fake Citation Fallacy: doing this with an alleged source so vague that it's impossible for your opponent to prove you wrong. Example: pretty much every sentence starting with "science has proven..." or "it is known..."
The Authoritarian Fallacy: Overvaluing the word of an authority to the point of using a citation to dismiss a totally valid and a priori proof and/or to believe something totally absurd or even self-evidently false. Example: the citation to Libet's studies on Wikipedia's article on free will that says it's been proven scientifically that our decisions are made by our brains about ten seconds before we become aware of them. This is a pretty flat-out denial of the existence of free will, which is how we KNOW the mind works due to a little thing called INTROSPECTION as well as several other reasons and if you can even take this citation seriously then you're an idiot.
The Anti-Independence Fallacy: Considering an argument that uses well-cited premises to be more sound than an argument that has no citations because it uses no contingent premises. Example: someone arguing against gun control prefers an argument showing that anti-gun legislation has failed to reduce crime rates to an argument that shows gun control is inherently incompatible with a basic moral principle that almost everyone on either side of the debate would agree to, such as that depriving an innocent person of their legitimately owned property is wrong, or that those who enforce the law must obey the law. Clearly the second argument is more valid for a multitude of reasons. No matter how reliable your citations are, they can never be more than 100% trustworthy, and if you can make an argument that doesn't depend on any empirical data at all but is still valid, then that one is 100% trustworthy.