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