user43480: As both of the new moderators indicated in their election Q&A, voting to close questions is the responsibility of the community, provided community members with sufficient reputation are actively engaged in reviewing close votes. 
If the close queue is up to date (which it has been), I would ask moderators avoid solo closing unless a question is particularly egregious. When you do solo close, I'd suggest a comment indicating not just why you thought the question should be closed, but why you thought it was so bad that it couldn't wait for community input.
To be clear, I haven't seen any excellent questions closed. I've just seen new moderators be a little more closehammer happy than I would have expected based on the Questionnaire answers.
Please respond with an answer here if you feel your Questionnaire answers were misinterpreted.
EDIT:
It might be time to have a broader discussion about the community expectations here. 3/4 mods seem to be saying pull back a bit while the queue is reasonably short, but this post has 2 up, 3 down votes right now. There is some appetite for a more aggressive moderation strategy among people voting on meta. I'd encourage those who feel this way to post an answer. 

user9943: Of course mods should leave close-voting to the community, and they should close only Qs when blatantly oftopic. I plead guilty. 
However, over the last months the close queue on my end was often >50. Because close-votes are removed at a certain point (when there are <5), I'm always afraid that the few active voters start to think Why should I vote? Nothing gets closed anyway. Hence, because I don't wish to discourage active voters, I sometimes run through the list when the #votes >50. Because I'm short in time, I run through the queue quite quickly. And yes, I often tend to err on closing Qs, especially when the #votes in is >3 and when they agree with each other (e.g. all 3 mention self-help, or when the reasons are closely related). 
Once I notice that the queue is held in check by the community, I am more than happy to stop closing Qs. However, I have often encouraged the community to review, via chat or on meta, unfortunately to no avail. I would really love to see you guys finally picking up the job - Go.for.it.        
My expectation, however, is that this spike in review activity is due to the elections. Before, during and shortly after the elections people are more motivated somehow. Because two active close-voters have been withdrawn from the active ground personnel and have picked up the diamond, I'm actually afraid that the length of the close-vote queue will even be worse than before the elections.

43480: <p>As both of the new moderators indicated in their <a href="https://biology.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3908/2019-moderator-election-qa-questionnaire">election Q&amp;A</a>, voting to close questions is the responsibility of the community, provided community members with sufficient reputation are actively engaged in reviewing close votes. </p>

<p>If the close queue is up to date (which it has been), I would ask moderators avoid solo closing unless a question is particularly egregious. When you do solo close, I'd suggest a comment indicating not just why you thought the question should be closed, but why you thought it was <em>so</em> bad that it couldn't wait for community input.</p>

<p>To be clear, I haven't seen any excellent questions closed. I've just seen new moderators be a little more closehammer happy than I would have expected based on the Questionnaire answers.</p>

<p>Please respond with an answer here if you feel your Questionnaire answers were misinterpreted.</p>

<p>EDIT:
It might be time to have a broader discussion about the community expectations here. 3/4 mods seem to be saying pull back a bit while the queue is reasonably short, but this post has 2 up, 3 down votes right now. There is some appetite for a more aggressive moderation strategy among people voting on meta. I'd encourage those who feel this way to post an answer. </p>
 9943: <p>Of course mods should leave close-voting to the community, and they should close only Qs when blatantly oftopic. I plead guilty. </p>

<p>However, over the last months the close queue on my end was often >50. Because close-votes are removed at a certain point (when there are &lt;5), I'm always afraid that the few active voters start to think <em>Why should I vote? Nothing gets closed anyway</em>. Hence, because I don't wish to discourage active voters, I sometimes run through the list when the #votes >50. Because I'm short in time, I run through the queue quite quickly. And yes, I often tend to err on closing Qs, especially when the #votes in is >3 and when they agree with each other (<em>e.g.</em> all 3 mention self-help, or when the reasons are closely related). </p>

<p>Once I notice that the queue is held in check by the community, I am more than happy to stop closing Qs. However, I have often encouraged the community to review, via chat or on meta, unfortunately to no avail. I would really love to see you guys finally picking up the job - Go.for.it.        </p>

<p>My expectation, however, is that this spike in review activity is due to the elections. Before, during and shortly after the elections people are more motivated somehow. Because two active close-voters have been withdrawn from the active ground personnel and have picked up the diamond, I'm actually afraid that the length of the close-vote queue will even be worse than before the elections.</p>
