No. I’m merely pointing out that your statements of “labeling fallacy” lack sufficient information to be meaningful to your readers.
(Parenthetically, to the extent that ‘Burden Shifting’ is acknowledged as a fallacy, it is a subset of an Argument from Ignorance. As I was not making an Argument from Ignorance, I was clearly not engaging in a “burden shift fallacy”.)
That a label is not supported does not demonstrate it is a fallacy. A fallacy is an error of logic, not of fact. An unsupported label can be used as part of a logically correct argument – it just means that one of the argument’s premises is false. A supported label can be used as part of a fallacious argument.
Let us take “not a physicist” as a label, and “WLC is not a physicist” as a premise.
WLC is not a physicist, therefore KCA is incorrect
… is fallacious – an ad hominem fallacy.
WLC is not a physicist, therefore we should be very cautious about whether the physics he cites in support of KCA premises does in fact support his premises
… is not fallacious, it is a rebuttal to an implicit argument from authority (given that it is not self-evident that the evidence he cites supports his premises, and so we would need to take his word for the claim).
The fallacy does not exist in the label, only in the employment of that label.
As @nwrickert points out, calling Hillary Clinton “Crooked Hillary” is not a logical argument, and therefore it is not a logical fallacy.