" 

 :::The problems are the three articles on the Tripoli clashes, the Battle of Brega and the Battle of Ras Lanuf. 
 :::Tripoli - In the Tripoli article, I myself stated that I am for it to be renamed because it wasn't a military battle, however he attacked me that I am not for renaming it and is constantly deleating the number of killed. I tried to insert in the infobox the claim by the IFHR that by February 24, 275 were reportedly killed, and the opposition claim that on February 26, 25 people were killed. For the sake of compromise I noted that both figures were claims. He deleted those sourced figures along with the references. 
 :::Brega - He constantly claims that it was just a minor skirmish and not a battle, even though every major media outlet is describing it and calling it a battle. I asked him for a source where it says it's a skirmish he plays crazy like he didn't hear me. And says that media claims don't count. He also constantly deletes the number of dead from the infobox because he says the BBC only claims 14 died in the battle/skirmish so it doesn't count if it's not fact. Again deletes both figures and sources. 
 :::Ras Lanuf - Same story as Brega. I tried to compromise with him and for the sake of stopping the edit war I renamed the article to Ras Lanuf clashes. But that term is simply too much POV, since these kind of things are and are being called battles. 
 I realy don't know what to do, I am at a loss for words.   
 I'm looking at Ras Lanuf right now.  It might help to mention the rebel's name from ref 7 (Marai), I don't know what ref 6 is referencing but ref 5 doesn't give the two day information, only ""earlier in the week"".  That needs to be better referenced.  Ref 8 matches two others; I'll help you fix references later once everything checks out.  Neither refs 9 or 10 mention the 20 executed soldiers. 

 So in summary, some editing is needed and I will not question Off2riorob on questioning the accuracy, as I found a few inaccuracies among the ones that do check out.  I'll hel;p sort out citations later if you can fix it up.  I am concerned about the triple-ref source, however; since it's constantly updated, information will vanish over time and have to re researched and referenced elsewhere.  Keep an eye on that. =) 

 I do not know about the rule with claims.  I know infoboxes are generally for facts.  I'd stick claims into the prose; it deserves to be mentioned if referenced in the sources, but perhaps not in the infobox.  But again, I don't know the rule for claims in the infobox.    "