Semi-protection only means people must have had an account for four days before they can edit it. Brandt's issue (he says) is that he doesn't want to have to keep checking his Wikpedia entry to see whether anything's been added that he needs to deal with. Asking him to draw up a list of complaints misses the point that he doesn't want to have to do this every day, every week, every month, every year. If we could agree on a stable version, then protect it until the heat has gone out of the situation, we'd be meeting him halfway between deletion and the current situation. Being reasonable has to involve compromises on both sides.
One of Wikipedia's greatest strengths is its timeliness. Protecting articles just so the subject doesn't feel the need to constantly monitor them is a bad precedent to set.
Frankly, it would probably be best if he just stopped posturing and sued the foundation. Then we could get a court to say once and for all that the article is legal, and that would (I hope) be the end of it.