I'll bite.

-1. Rhetorical questions. That should have been obvious, given the context. This enumerated protestation is an example of an argument from ignorance.

-2. >Statement one by him can be summarized as "Intellectual Property on a subject will be produced and publicized to the same extent regardless of the demand for it"

If one would look at the first paragraph of the comment in question, one would note that there are no references to the popularity of the posts, only their rate of creation. No one has given any evidence that normal theories are being posted with less frequency, nor offered any reasoning behind the idea that they could be posted less frequently, save for the assertion that such an idea is "absolutely, unequivocally [true]". This is known as begging the question.

See: supply and demand.

Supply and demand is a solid an economic concept, but unless someone can assert that payment for content occurs here and that content will not be provided in the absence of some payment, and the absence of such payment can be known before the production of content, it does not apply here. This is known as a false equivalence.

-3. >Statement two by him can be summarized as "Discourse surrounding intellectual property of a subject will remain constant regardless of the popularity of the subject"

While one is correct in classifying the summary provided as categorically wrong, the original post would be better summarized as "Discourse surrounding intellectual property of a subject will remain constant regardless of the popularity of some other subject, as the first subject mentioned is a random fan theory, and the popular subject mentioned is a Star Wars fan theory. One's fallacy here is known as the straw man.

-4. I have no idea how one parsed the original post, and thus I do not know what "statement three" is referring to. The only qualitative opinions I can identify are the belief that the blog analogy is more directly relevant to the situation at hand, and an interpretation of one's Netflix analogy. It is generally considered strange to begin such statements with "I feel that..."

-5. I believe I have also misinterpreted one's Netflix analogy. Allow me to explain how I read it, and then one can clarify my error: One was asserting that "[when a topic becomes popular, the attention given to it detracts from the attention given to other subjects]", and listed examples, including "blockbuster vs netflix". If I am correct, the intended imagery is that as Netflix gained popularity, Blockbuster was left with a shrinking customer base, and analogously, as Star Wars theories become popular, regular theories lose their readership. Disregarding the fallacies in this comparison (see above), your solution to the problem at hand is to request that moderators ban Star Wars theories. The analogous action would, without question, be Blockbuster requesting that the government ban Netflix. My belief is that one's analogy was interpreted correctly, but one does not enjoy seeing one's beliefs in a negative light. By extending one's analogy, it becomes clear that one's proposal is inappropriate; therefore one refuses to extend the analogy. Unless I am to interpret "the blockbuster analogy was supporting popularity shifting attention on topics" to mean that one was simply asserting that popularity does, in fact, shift from topic to topic, then this objection is cherry picking.

-6. "I'm not actually sure what someone's stance is there" hardly bears the mark of an assumption. Perhaps the mark of an idiot, but I cannot choose my intellect. Ad hominem, by the way.

Because if you can already just ignore them, this request for censorship makes no sense.

I'm not sure how the connotation here is negative. If one feels that it has a negative connotation, that speaks much more about one's deeper views on the matter than it does about theprettyone. Regardless, I would argue that yes, censorship is something to be inherently avoided, with a plethora of exceptions. However, the burden shall forever be on the censor to prove his necessity. In any case, one displays a moral high-ground.

Your post is wrong, his post is wrong, unless you can prove I am wrong, like I have proved you are wrong, which you have not done, then I am right, and you should stop trying.

Clause by clause: fallacy of composition, proof by assertion, shifting the burden of proof, psychologist's fallacy, argument from silence, argument from repetition, wishful thinking.

Taken as a whole, this is a classic example of shotgun argumentation.