I have no very strong opinion right now on the linguistic reasons for this proposal. It's a very curious case, and it would take some time for me to understand it well.
But I think the most important part of this proposal was this part, which worries me a bit:
Another reason to break out of the old Wikipedia for Norwegian, is that there have been complaints about certain administrators there abusing their power to block other users from introducing changes that contradict the personal views of those administrators. (I have not experienced this, but some indignant users have turned to me for help.) Rather than quarreling about this or start accusing people, I thought I'd offer to start a new encyclopedia where there will be no censorship (as long as the texts are in bokmål and not downright offensive), and where democratic guidelines regarding content are adhered to, as well as the principle of neutrality.
If there's a social problem, then I would say that splitting is very much the wrong solution. I'm sure there are two sides (or more :-)) to this story, but if your version is correct, then the outcome will be that the existing wikipedia will continue to work under a bad set of policies that don't work properly to ensure due process.
I do appreciate the attitude, I should add, of "not quarreling or accusing people". Very valuable. But it need not be a quarrel or accusations to talk in general terms about how to improve things going forward.
--Jimbo