user31794: I'm not really sure where to ask for moderator help. @ChrisStratton is engaging in an edit war on my answer to Are clone-specific questions on topic for this site? because he doesn't like my (and, presumably, the original poster's) use of the terminology "clone." I've asked him not change my answer in this way, undone his changes several times now, added additional explanation to my answer to indicate to all that I'm using the term "clone" in a way different from what he seems to feel is the only approved way of using it, and asked him to add his own answer or comments if he disagrees with my answer. Unfortunately, he persists in reintroducing his change to my answer.
What should one do in this situation?
[Side note: the rollback history may look a little odd; I didn't understand how rollbacks actually work until just now so I both failed to rollback his original unwanted change (instead changing it back by hand) and did some incorrect rollbacks while finding out that the link rolls back not the commit it's on but to the commit its on.]

user10794: Look Alterno is correct that the linked site starts with the headline "Building an Arduino on a Breadboard" and is titled "Arduino - Setting up an Arduino on a breadboard" (the title showing on the tab heading for that page).
And indeed the article is about making a breadboard Arduino.
Thanks for the comments in your answer about my article about making a "torch locator" using the Arduino IDE. This wasn't really a breadboard, nor a clone. ;)
I would personally think of a clone as something which is similar to an existing Arduino board (or indeed virtually identical) - hence the word "clone". Something that is pin-compatible I would refer to as Arduino-compatible. And something that uses the IDE and libraries, but has its own hardware design, would be called, ah, I'm not sure. "In the Arduino spirit?" maybe.

As for your actual question, I agree with Majenko. Try to amicably sort it out first, and if that isn't possible flag the answer for moderator attention.

user33608: I've seen a similar situation on another SE site. I think the following posts on SE:Meta may be relevant here:

How to avoid Edit-Wars?
Who has the final authority in an edit war? OP or a moderator?


My personal view is that the main function of tags is to help people to quickly find content on a particular topic. As such, tags should relate directly to the content of the question.
When problems arise, it's generally because the meaning of the tag(s) can be interpreted in different ways. In such cases, I would probably either refine the definitions of the tag(s) to provide clarity, or simply include both tags.
In this case, the dispute is about the interpretation of a word in the text rather than a tag. While this might be used as a search term, that is not its primary function. I'd suggest that if the meaning of the word is thought to be unclear, or might be misinterpreted, just specify how you are defining it in the body of the answer.

user4143: 
What should one do in this situation?

Exactly what you have done. First try and sort it out between yourselves, and when that fails, bring it to our attention here. I have locked the answer so it cannot be edited while it gets sorted out.
I guess this falls under the broader heading of how do we, on this site, define "clone". Personally I try not to use it as the word "clone" but couple it with "cheap Chinese" to specifically indicate a device which tries to look like the real thing but is built with some components replaced with cheaper equivalents (CH340G for example). They are as close to the genuine article for new users to be duped into thinking they have a real one when they don't. Yet by the strictest definition they aren't a clone - a clone is an exact copy.
Much of the time the user asking the question doesn't even know that they have a clone / counterfeit / copy / derivative board - they are just asking about using it or getting it going (9 times out of ten it's a CH340G problem, but since they don't know what that is they're looking in the wrong direction anyway and installing FTDI drivers for some reason...). 
The problem with this kind of site is the number of pedants that abound who love to focus on one specific word in an answer that they don't agree with and cause merry hell because of it. It makes them feel important in their small world. The EE site is full of them (which is the main reason I never go there any more).
If the meaning of the answer is clear (as yours is) the exact semantic meaning of specific terms within it is of no importance. Whether you call it a clone, a derivative, or a pile of rancid dog vomit spewed forth by a disreputable fabrication house in the wilds of Malaysia, is of no intrinsic importance.
However, I would say that the editor in question is in the wrong editing your answer like that. Raise his concerns in comments, sure, so you can discuss it and make any changes you both agree with, but acting like a Grammar Nazi? No. Certainly not.

31794: <p>I'm not really sure where to ask for moderator help. @ChrisStratton is engaging in an edit war on <a href="https://arduino.meta.stackexchange.com/a/2436/31794">my answer</a> to <a href="https://arduino.meta.stackexchange.com/q/15/31794">Are clone-specific questions on topic for this site?</a> because he doesn't like my (and, presumably, the original poster's) use of the terminology "clone." I've asked him not change my answer in this way, undone his changes several times now, added additional explanation to my answer to indicate to all that I'm using the term "clone" in a way different from what he seems to feel is the only approved way of using it, and asked him to add his own answer or comments if he disagrees with my answer. Unfortunately, he persists in reintroducing his change to my answer.</p>

<p>What should one do in this situation?</p>

<p>[Side note: the rollback history may look a little odd; I didn't understand how rollbacks actually work until just now so I both failed to rollback his original unwanted change (instead changing it back by hand) and did some incorrect rollbacks while finding out that the link rolls back not the commit it's on but <em>to</em> the commit its on.]</p>
 10794: <p>Look Alterno is correct that the linked site starts with the headline "Building an Arduino on a Breadboard" and is <em>titled</em> "Arduino - Setting up an Arduino on a breadboard" (the title showing on the tab heading for that page).</p>

<p>And indeed the article is about making a breadboard Arduino.</p>

<p>Thanks for the comments in your answer about my article about making a "torch locator" using the Arduino IDE. This wasn't really a breadboard, nor a clone. ;)</p>

<p>I would personally think of a clone as something which is similar to an existing Arduino board (or indeed virtually identical) - hence the word "clone". Something that is pin-compatible I would refer to as Arduino-compatible. And something that uses the IDE and libraries, but has its own hardware design, would be called, ah, I'm not sure. "In the Arduino spirit?" maybe.</p>

<hr>

<p>As for your actual question, I agree with Majenko. Try to amicably sort it out first, and if that isn't possible flag the answer for moderator attention.</p>
 33608: <p>I've seen a similar situation on another SE site. I think the following posts on SE:Meta may be relevant here:</p>

<ul>
<li><a href="https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/64085/how-to-avoid-edit-wars">How to avoid Edit-Wars?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/291153/who-has-the-final-authority-in-an-edit-war-op-or-a-moderator">Who has the final authority in an edit war? OP or a moderator?</a></li>
</ul>

<hr>

<p>My personal view is that the main function of tags is to help people to quickly find content on a particular topic. As such, tags should relate directly to the content of the question.</p>

<p>When problems arise, it's generally because the meaning of the tag(s) can be interpreted in different ways. In such cases, I would probably either refine the definitions of the tag(s) to provide clarity, or simply include both tags.</p>

<p>In this case, the dispute is about the interpretation of a word in the text rather than a tag. While this might be used as a search term, that is not its primary function. I'd suggest that if the meaning of the word is thought to be unclear, or might be misinterpreted, just specify how you are defining it in the body of the answer.</p>
 4143: <blockquote>
  <p>What should one do in this situation?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Exactly what you have done. First try and sort it out between yourselves, and when that fails, bring it to our attention here. I have locked the answer so it cannot be edited while it gets sorted out.</p>

<p>I guess this falls under the broader heading of how do we, on this site, define "clone". Personally I try not to use it as the word "clone" but couple it with "cheap Chinese" to specifically indicate a device which tries to look like the real thing but is built with some components replaced with cheaper equivalents (CH340G for example). They are as close to the genuine article for new users to be duped into thinking they have a real one when they don't. Yet by the strictest definition they aren't a clone - a clone is an <em>exact</em> copy.</p>

<p>Much of the time the user asking the question doesn't even know that they have a clone / counterfeit / copy / derivative board - they are just asking about using it or getting it going (9 times out of ten it's a CH340G problem, but since they don't know what that is they're looking in the wrong direction anyway and installing FTDI drivers for some reason...). </p>

<p>The problem with this kind of site is the number of pedants that abound who love to focus on one specific word in an answer that they don't agree with and cause merry hell because of it. It makes them feel important in their small world. The EE site is full of them (which is the main reason I never go there any more).</p>

<p>If the meaning of the answer is clear (as yours is) the exact semantic meaning of specific terms within it is of no importance. Whether you call it a clone, a derivative, or a pile of rancid dog vomit spewed forth by a disreputable fabrication house in the wilds of Malaysia, is of no intrinsic importance.</p>

<p>However, I would say that the editor in question is in the wrong editing your answer like that. Raise his concerns in comments, sure, so you can discuss it and make any changes you both agree with, but acting like a Grammar Nazi? No. Certainly not.</p>
