Strictly speaking, that wasn't impersonating (except for the photo). And it was evident that the user intent wasn't to impersonate Olin Lathrop. So I didn't find something blatantly against the rules (since the stuff is in the profile description).

About staff doesn't need input from random users about their "opinions" on the matter.. I beg to disagree. The whole CoDidact project started because someone in the StackExchange company thought users had no say in things. I would be very wary to contribute if we start building the same toxic environment here. CoDidact is by definition community-controlled. If the community deems my post is irrelevant, or inappropriate, it can just downvote it.

If you don't understand why disciplinary matters or individual users should be discussed in private instead in some public meta discussion, then I suspect you have no experience of moderation. Lynch mobs or witch hunts isn't democracy, it is the opposite. You are the one building toxicity here. Discussing individual users on a public meta thread is very toxic and uncomfortable at best for the person targeted. Doing so is not tolerated on SO so I don't see why it should be tolerated here.

About my lack of mod experience on the web, you are right. However, when I wrote that post I didn't see any severe problem about that profile. Irony and sarcasm is an old way to display dissent, and was allowed even under the most tyrannical rulers (court jesters anyone?!?). I think the ultimate judge about that profile should be Olin Lathrop, which is the only person that could feel offended by that speech.

Disciplinary action? I'm not really sure there is a clear basis for mod intervention without Olin Lathrop chiming-in. Since, technically, you can't "prosecute" irony and sarcasm "in the name of the powers that be". Besides, I'm neither trying to bully people nor to organize lynch mobs, which you seem to believe, and my post is quite clear about it (if you don't agree, please, show me where I gave that impression).

Moreover, I think humor goes a long way to deescalate things in a community. It also helps building a community. The title in my post should have made it clear, since it was meant as an ironic rebuttal of the profile description in question.

"Discussing individual users on a public meta..." I didn't discuss a user, but just what he posted on his profile, which is already public, and was obviously meant to be public. I never said or implied anything about the user himself.

What I criticized in your comment was the sentence I quoted. And I quoted it to focus just on that very sentence and the attitude that transpires from it.

You add to that (apparently in the same vein): "Doing so is not tolerated on SO so I don't see why it should be tolerated here.". May I answer: "Because we want to be different from SO", maybe? And this is not an objection to your point, but to your rationale for it. What do they do on SO is none of my business any longer.

I say it again, to be completely clear, I have no problem with you criticizing my bringing up the topic. We can discuss that.

I have some problems with your stated reasoning behind that criticism. Because it seems to me that you use SE network as a paragon stone for how we should behave here, and that you think the community is not central to decisions. If this is true (I may have gotten it wrong, due to language barriers and word nuances), then I strongly disagree.