Folks, folks -
I think a compromise possibility briefly popped up already, let me highlight it again:
Daniel Brandt (and any other person in a similar situation) ought to be permitted to comment directly on the talk page of his biography as long as he does not become extremely disruptive, irrespective of off-wiki conduct. He does not, from his comments I've seen, appear to have any interest in Wikipedia beyond that, anyway. So, his editing privileges can be limited in this way -- enforced by another block if he violates this basic rule. (The overall block would only be lifted if there is a more substantial improvement in the relationship, mutual apologies, and so forth.)
Yes, this means he will keep us busy with comments and objections to the way the bio is phrased. But I think that's only fair; we put it there, we refuse to remove it on his request, we should at least give him a very simple & public method of pointing out what he considers to be bias or errors. A person's off wiki-behavior should have no bearing on this very basic privilege -- as long as they can still access the site, and if they're not causing significant disruption, they should be permitted to comment on "their" bio.
Jimmy et al. - could that be a reasonable compromise?