What merits flagging, or potentially closing a proposal?
Here is the context of my asking this question:
On the Elrond proposal on Area 51 main, I am considering flagging it. This is because of the volume of recent new followers to the area 51 site. This might not usually be a problem, but within the last 40 followers, exactly one has more than 100 rep, meaning there are basically no experienced users recently committed to the proposal. This could cause a problem in the commitment stage, as 100 users with at least 200 rep on a non-area 51 site are required to move the site to private, and then public, beta. There could also be voter fraud (meaning people creating multiple accounts and then voting up as many questions to 10 votes as possible), as it seems like there are a lot of new accounts that have followed the proposal. They also seem to have one glaring similarity between them: they all have two badges (the pioneer and advocate badges) and have each upvoted multiple times... while basically none of them have downvoted a question on the proposal. (As a side note for flagging this proposal, for the top-voted question, What does ESDT stand for, I was able to find the answer just by using a couple of google searches in about two minutes, showing that people are also not thinking about what they are voting up.)
I have seen other proposals throughout the last year that are similarly weak (or contain voting fraud) and never get past the commitment stage. Should we flag/close proposals like this, which are very suspicious, and likely will never make it to Beta? And how can we prevent (or discourage) the making of fake accounts and weak proposals in the future?
There probably is no perfect solution to this problem, but all thoughts, ideas, and suggestions are welcome.