From the link you posted:

> It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence.

At no point have I dismissed any expert.

Thanks for the quote tho, whats your point?

The point is quite clear. It's not an appeal to authority. Experts are generally more qualified to express opinions on their topic of expertise, but this doesn't make them immune from criticism. It does, however, make it a bit harder to call their view into question, and calls for a more sophisticated approach, usually by referring to problems with their evidence or absence of consensus.

Suppose an expert in a field has offered an opinion on their topic of expertise. You criticise that view based on unreliable evidence. I point out to you that your evidence is unreliable, and that the expert's view should be preferred due to its higher reliability. It's no answer for you to invoke the appeal to authority fallacy. You need to show that your evidence really is reliable, or why it's wrong to characterise your evidence as unreliable.

Suppose on the other hand that an expert in a particular field offers a view outside of mainstream consensus. I say that his view should be accepted. You say his view is not mainstream consensus. I say that he's an expert so he must be right. This is an appeal to authority.

I think it's important to distinguish the authority of expertise from the authority of power.

This isn't an appeal to authority, though. Also note there's a fallacy on there about using fallacies to discredit someone.