The description of the Community user mentions:
Own downvotes on spam/evil posts that get permanently deleted
Should the correct wording be "inappropriate" instead of evil? What does an evil post mean? Please, can someone provide an example?
Meta Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for meta-discussion of the Stack Exchange family of Q&A websites. It only takes a minute to sign up.Sign up to join this community
Should the correct wording be "inappropriate" instead of evil?
No. "Inappropriate" is far too broad of a word. I would hope that the system would not be casting votes on the basis of "inappropriateness".
While I personally don't care much for the use of "evil" in this context, it's a better word, since it gives the impression at least that it is a rare thing, only employed for "worst-of-the-worst" cases. "Inappropriate" does not. People make posts people find "inappropriate" all the time.
Please, can someone provide an example?
Probably not, since most such posts get expunged with great efficiency by our various flagging and systems. I think "abusive" would probably be a more accurate term.
Overall however, you have probably spent more time composing a message about this than the discussion is actually worth (and I certainly have in composing this reply). The word is adequate, if imperfect, so it's best to spend time on things that matter.
Since none of the answers explain the question about downvotes in the title, I figured I should explain it.
Whenever someone casts a "spam" or "rude or abusive" flag on a post, the system automatically casts a downvote on the post on the flagger's behalf. These downvotes are owned by the Community user. (The Community user is not an actual "user" in the strict sense; it just claims credit for automated system actions.)
As far as the "that get permanently deleted" part, these downvotes are automatically revoked if the flags get declined or manually cleared, which is (usually) the eventual state of these flags if the post remains alive, so they're really only in existence on posts that are deleted for these reasons.
As far as the word "evil", the Community user's biography is intended as more of an informal introduction to what it does and the most common cases where you'd see it in action. As such, it's written in a rather informal language compared to the help pages and faq posts. Any reasonable person would consider spam and rude/abusive posts as "evil" for the site, and so the bio lists that.
You can find examples of posts that it owns downvotes on by checking the SmokeDetector logs. (That is a community project that helps users find posts to cast such flags on.)
The term "evil" in this case is used to describe, as far as I can tell, highly offensive posts which often contain very bad language.
Those are posted either by random internet trolls (who post such things randomly wherever they can), or by highly frustrated users who rage quit and blame other users (or the mods) for what happened.
Imagine the worst offensive language you can think of, and that's your example.
Evil, in a general sense, is the opposite or absence of good. It can be an extremely broad concept, though in everyday usage is often used more narrowly to denote profound wickedness. It is generally seen as taking multiple possible forms, such as the form of personal moral evil commonly associated with the word, or impersonal natural evil (as in the case of natural disasters or illnesses), and in religious thought, the form of the demonic or supernatural/eternal.
Evil can denote profound immorality, but typically not without some basis in the understanding of the human condition, where strife and suffering [...] are the true roots of evil. In certain religious contexts, evil has been described as a supernatural force. Definitions of evil vary, as does the analysis of its motives. Elements that are commonly associated with personal forms of evil involve unbalanced behavior involving anger, revenge, fear, hatred, psychological trauma, expediency, selfishness, ignorance, destruction or neglect.
Evil is sometimes perceived as the dualistic antagonistic binary opposite to good, in which good should prevail and evil should be defeated. [...] The philosophical questions regarding good and evil are subsumed into three major areas of study:
- Meta-ethics concerning the nature of good and evil,
- Normative ethics concerning how we ought to behave, and
- Applied ethics concerning particular moral issues.
While the term is applied to events and conditions without agency, the forms of evil addressed in this article presume an evildoer or doers.
Now understanding the definition, I think it is easy to understand: "evil posts", "evil votes", "evil comment" are all reasonable terminologies, although they are used only rarely.
We live in a rationalist civilization, and - as also the Wikipedia page shows - this terminology deals mainly with irrationality. This is why this word is typically substituted by different euphemisms.
Evil posts are, for example:
The community bot is not capable of making moral decisions. Its downvotes are based on the flags of the users (who are), as it is described in Sonic's answer.