This isn't a disciplinary action, it's housekeeping. Questions need to be answerable and as-is, and this one isn't. "Too broad" refers to too many possible causes. Typically, USB ports on monitors are for monitor input, they aren't pass-throughs to the computer. I'm surprised it ever worked at all. Hopefully, someone will suggest diagnostics you can run that might enable you to add sufficient information to make the question answerable.

Identifying and outlining the need is a critical first step, and the subject matter experts aren't always aware of the needs of the non-experts. Maybe someone will run with the idea. Regardless, thanks for creating this thread.

You did a good job of laying this out and getting the ball rolling. Even if you don't pursue it, you deserve a lot of credit for bringing it up and taking it this far. These projects tend to be a "labor of love" because they are a lot of work, and generally start out or become community wikis, so there isn't a rep reward. They're most easily created by subject matter experts, so if you don't feel sufficiently qualified, there's nothing wrong with that. (cont'd)

Outline what you envision in the question and each planned answer in separate posts here. People can react to it and suggest changes, and suggest additional answers to fill out the topic. People can comment on specific parts to volunteer to draft it after the actual question has been posted.

A couple of good models for doing this: superuser.com/questions/241817/… and superuser.com/questions/100360/…. I don't use Windows 10, so I can't help much with the content, but would be happy to do what I can in terms of suggesting structuring and editing. One way to get community help is to use answers here as placeholders for the component posts. (cont'd)

You gave up too soon. Sometimes Meta questions take awhile for people to see them. Already at +9 (+10/-1), there have been no more downvotes after the initial one, and now at zero close votes. You didn't ask for advice in the question on structuring a canonical thread, and you seemed to have the topic well in hand. That's likely why you didn't get input. People are more likely to react to something you draft. (cont'd)

Well, I still think it's a good idea. :-)

The title isn't what makes a question a duplicate, so you don't need to include the question title in the Meta question title. Just include a link to the original question in the body here.

I don't understand the negative reaction to this question. This is a common question that we get. At the very least, we ought to be able to create a series of answers, each dealing with a specific situation, or a specific tool. I completely agree that it would be good to have a one-stop thread for these questions. It also lends itself to a community effort, where users with different experience can contribute different answers.

It can also be more effective to use a forum than a Q&A site. That format is more conducive to a lot of interactive discussion, which is often the key to figuring out the problem.

Explaining a single downvote is guesswork. The current version seems pretty clear, but it's missing detail and diagnostic information that would allow a definitive solution. Just to manage expectations, it's tough to diagnose a problem that can have a range of causes in a Q&A format. It's even tougher if you lack familiarity with the relevant tools and technical details. Some problems are a lot easier to solve if you enlist the help of a knowledgeable friend. Short of that, you can do a lot of online research to try to get up to speed on the issue. (cont'd)

If the patent you're asking about has already been implemented and people are familiar with it, the question would be more on-topic and get a better response than if it is still just a theoretical approach.

@Hashim, the problem isn't the context or your research, it's what you're asking people to do in answer to your question. Asking people to distill a document isn't an on-topic request, even if the content relates to computers. Asking people to explain how a computer-related thing works is closer, but still computer theory rather than a specific computer-related problem. However, that kind of question often gets a pass from the community. (cont'd)

@Hashim, the question was closed before I saw it, but my reaction to it was the same as random describes. At least as written, the question is not how to solve a computer hardware or software problem. It asks people to distill a document for you, which is not really on-topic. If you tweaked the wording to just ask for an explanation, and assuming the content is well known, that would be more of a computer science question. But it might be "close enough" that the community might make an exception (which is the value of the "inconsistency" you complained about in your other post). :-)

@kreemoweet, I agree. I didn't design the site and don't like that aspect either. The minimums are useful, but the maximum wastes available screen space. That said, I'm not sure there's a good, simple alternative without major redesign. The main column would become difficult to read if it was too much wider. It is hard to read an extremely wide column of text (which is why periodicals use multiple columns). If you have a solution, please post it. It is sure to be a popular post.

BTW, for fastest action, include a link to the user and/or posts if you raise the issue in chat or here.

A regular spam flag on each post will get them into the general review queue, and other users will make short work of them. Adding a comment makes it easy for other users to see what's going on, and look for the other posts. A serial spammer is a separate issue, since you want a mod to take action with the user, independent of the posts. A custom flag will work for that, although those are seen only by mods, so that can delay getting rid of the posts. Another way is to use regular spam flags for the posts, and for the user, either one custom flag or post a comment on the Ask a Moderator chat.