Did he ever point out what the inaccurate information would be in the Wikipedia article or does he just stick to these generic complaints?
As far back as August 2019, when I
became aware he was posting on Gab about "countering Wikipedia hit-pieces", I have invited him to point out any errors or raise any concerns about the biography or the company article in whatever way he's most comfortable: by contacting me, by writing on the Wikipedia article talk page, by asking for input from uninvolved Wikipedians aside from me, whatever.
Our first communication was after such an invitation, I believe. He direct messaged me on Twitter to point out an error—in a Wikipedia article I had never edited. At the time, the Wikipedia article on Lisa Bloom said that her husband, Braden Pollock, was on the board of Gab (where it should have said Epik). I quickly corrected the error. In the same conversation, even before I had an opportunity to respond, he felt the need to say that Bloom was the daughter of "a civil rights lawyer who would have a field day with defamation". He also told me "she is a super-lawyer. Definitely not a person to annoy with libelous nonsense".
He has never pointed to any specific errors in either the Epik or the Rob Monster articles, despite my repeated invitations over two years. Regardless, I went through both articles carefully after he insisted they were erroneous to try to find any errors myself. It may be that he thinks there are errors in the source material that are being reflected into the Wikipedia article—I have also repeatedly encouraged him to provide sources that contradict any erroneous source statements, or to reach out to journalists to issue corrections (which can then be reflected into Wikipedia). He has never provided such contradictory sourcing, and hasn't specified what these errors in source material might be.
He has in the past asked for things to be
added to one or the other page, but has either not been able to provide adequate independent, reliable sourcing, or has wanted things to be added that can't be supported by the sources he linked.
I don't wish to take this thread on more of a tangent about Wikipedia, but am always happy to discuss Wikipedia in more detail if I can be informative or helpful, either to do with these articles or more broadly (in another thread, on a different platform, whatever makes sense).