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.