This is the question I am referring to. It has several downvotes, so it appears to be "systematic" rather than incidental.
I believe that there were two "technical" issues involved with my question, both perhaps deriving from that the fact that I was born in 1957, which means that 1) I much less tech savvy than average and 2) I am not completely up to date on slang. At any rate, these were the basis of two critiques in the comment.
The first issue that came up is that while I linked a relevant film clip, I do not know how to embed the image or set the time on the page (it was about 3:50, out of 4:00). That has since between fixed.
The second was that I was criticized for the use of the term "manspreading." I realize that this is done mainly on public transportation. But in the "library" scene, Harold Hill, the Music Man, sat down on a bench with his legs maximally apart, and then closed and opened them (in the context of chasing the librarian). I believe that this is a "legally accurate" definition of manspreading, even though the context is a bit unusual.
I understand that questions are often downvoted for say, "lack of research." But I placed two links in the question. So while people can fault the quality of my research, it was not for lack of trying.
And maybe it's because I'm dyslectic, but I can barely tell the difference between what Harold Hill did in the film, and the example here that a poster cited.
Was the downvoting for the reasons listed in the comments? And why, given the circumstances? I don't see how the question is offensive, and while it may have been a bit weak, I did the best that I could. Is it reasonable for me to expect help or editing to fix the technical issues regarding the film clip, or the fact that I used the term "manspreading" in an unconventional way?
Under different circumstances, I would even have deleted the question but it drew a highly upvoted answer that I plan to accept.