"Zeq you asked me to vote on Ramallite's nomination. The problem is that SlimVirgin nominated Ramallite. Considering my current dispute, I think it is inappropriate to vote. Sorry. If you just want my opinion, it seems from the few tussles you and Ramallite have had, you often edit POV bits into the articles, but at the same time Ramallite is incapable of respecting the NPOV facts that you do add or are contained within your edits to the point where his actions are just as bad. An example would be your addition about the number of wells cut off by the barrier (I can't find it now and only recall it somewhat). While some of your addition I remember as strongly POV, there were important facts contained within it such as that the Israel government says that no wells have been cut off. If I remember correctly, Ramallite simply reverted which is not appropriate. Another example I see is part of your recent edit. Some of it I think is POV such as implying all Israelis agree in the first statement, whether you meant ""Israel the government"" or ""Israel the citizens"" is unclear. One thing that irked me was Ramallite's reversion of the following addition: ""The Israeli government states that the purpose of the barrier is to prevent the infiltration of terrorists, and that any hardship imposed on Palestinians is an unfortunate side effect made necessary by terrorism."" This I believe is completely true and you are attributing it so it should be easy to verify. The current version: ""Although the Israeli government has said that the purpose of the barrier is to prevent attacks and that any hardship to Palestinians is an unfortunate side effect made necessary by terrorism, the barrier's opponents say the barrier is the de facto future border of the State of Israel."" is argumentative and implies the first statement is false and last statement is true as a result of the conditional ""Although"" which implies contradiction. This is far more POV than your addition. Considering that he says he will continue to work on the articles where you have the dispute I would be inclined to oppose the nomination based on this alone. Additionally he seems condescending towards you, and I'm sure it is difficult to ignore that considering his edits and stay civil (though staying civil would probably help the dispute). I sympathize but will not vote. 

"