I'm putting on my admin and IRC channel op hats, and trying to figure out how this proposal makes those jobs easier or different. I think there are reasonable ideas in this proposal, but the second level escalation path should follow inside of the appropriate local scopes.
I'm cautious about explicitly assigning a global ban role to WMF as a part of a community policy; having WMF police the community is a cause of concern after WMF's previous actions like Superprotect. I have heard very mixed signals from WMF on this point which makes me think that WMF has divergent views among the staff.
Generally, I'm not seeing that this proposal in its current form is valuable in the policy sense. It might do better as an essay about social principles and advice about possible escalation paths. I do think this proposal helps us along the road to a global friendly spaces policy in the sense that the general outline is well organized.
I like the point someone made in this discussion about the distiction between legislating policy and making social change. I think that what is needed is the latter, and that the latter is a more complex conversation to have. I think that we need to figure out the desired social end state, then work backwards and figure out which tools should be used to enact change; policies are probably a part of the solution, but only a part.
Pine