Disruptive editing
In my view the collaborative editing team working to make this a FA has shown extreme tolerance in accommodating the concerns of User:Skipsievert. This latest "tagging" follows a full consideration and resolution of COI issues on the appropriate noticeboard. Repeated editing of resolved or previously discussed issues is part of the pattern of disruptive editing. Below is part of the content of the WP entry on disruptive editing:

How disruptive editors evade detection 

Disruptive editing already violates site policy, yet certain editors have succeeded in disrupting articles and evading disciplinary action for one of several possible reasons:

 their edits occur over a long period of time; in this case, no single edit may be clearly disruptive, but the overall pattern is disruptive
 their edits are largely confined to talk-pages, such disruption may not directly harm an article, but it often prevents other editors from reaching consensus on how to improve an article
 their edits often avoid gross breaches of civility, especially by refraining from personal attacks, even though they interfere with civil and collaborative editing meant to improve the article
 their edits remain limited to a small number of pages that very few people watch
 conversely, their edits may be distributed over a wide range of articles that few people watch.

 Signs of disruptive editing 

This guideline concerns gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree.

A disruptive editor is an editor who:

 Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well.
 Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.
 Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified  tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable.
 Does not engage in consensus building:
 repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;
 repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.
 Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors.
In addition, such editors may:
 Campaign to drive away productive contributors''': act in spite of policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles.

Refusal to 'get the point'

In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error. Often such editors are continuing to base future attacks and edits upon the rejected statement. Such an action is disruptive to Wikipedia. Thinking one has a valid point does not confer the right to act like it is an accepted rule when it is not.

The editing team has expressed the view that reasonable verified and substantiated requests will be given full consideration. However, IMO the recent spate of "refusing to get to the point", repeated "tagging" total disengagement with "consensus building", "ignoring of requests for explanations", "ignoring moderator suggestions", "rapid negative engagement with new contributors" all spell out the pattern of disruptive editing that has long-delayed completion of this collective effort, and it deserves disciplinary action.