The user Zypher has very little reputation, but is able to close questions without reaching the limit because he works for SE. By not letting the community vote (i.e. 5 of the top 17 users) it seems that he is taking away from the development of the community. Many closed questions are not even old (the site itself is not even old, of course), so have not had a chance to be improved (e.g. through editing).
Do others share this opinion? If so, could Zypher please let the burgeoning community do more of its own clean-up? If not, perhaps following the community's request to include a comment explaining the close (when not obvious, as is the case with many of these) would be polite?
Hard data, as requested: I compiled a list of all the questions that are currently closed (I don't know if there's a way to just search for these, until the data hits the public dump).
- 29 questions have been closed by the community (defined as 3+ members). I think this in fact shows that the community is policing itself, given a chance.
- 3 questions were closed by Zypher after one other user voted for closure. It seems likely that the community would have closed these too (but IMO should have been given that chance).
- 13 questions have been closed by Zypher alone. Every one of these was closed three hours ago, unlike the other examples here, which are spread over the brief life of the site. (5% of the site's questions were closed in about a 10 minute period).
- 2 questions were closed by moderator Rebecca Chernoff.
- 2 questions were closed by one moderator other than Zypher and one other member.
- 4 questions were closed because they were moved to meta. I don't think these are relevant here.
Please note that I am not saying that all the questions that Zypher closed should not have been closed. FWIW, none were my questions.
If the community is not given a chance to police itself (because a moderator does the work), then how will the community grow to do this? Teach a man to fish, etc.