I'm curious if anyone has noticed or did any checking on possible bias in the Workplace Forum when it comes to closing threads? Yes, there is criteria for closing a question, and that criteria, although sometimes questionable itself is officially to the forum, however, what I am referring to is a bias occurring outside of that criteria. Do we know how many people have closing thread authority? How big is that pool of people, and is there any oversight built in to it?
I raise this question because I've found posts which are in my opinion clearly viable and important questions which are getting closed. I also find when one person votes to close, a cohort of others are quick to add their votes to close as well. I'm astonished how quickly the cohort follows. If high reputation members tend to be managers and supervisors themselves then it would follow they might try to vote out threads on questions which question authority, or are strongly confrontational.
I am aware that the Workplace Meta is like a form of oversight itself. However, it can also be used negatively by forcing good but confrontational questions to have to be dragged through a discussion for re-opening, and only for members who even know about the Meta site.