Disruptive edits 

Hello, . Despite 's statement, you have not so far been reported at WP:Administrator intervention against vandalism as far as I can see; but if you continue your disruptive editing you will be. Looking at your edits, I get that you have strong opinions about John de Ruiter. While I know nothing of him, I have some sympathy with your position. But you are going about your campaign in a way that is disruptive to Wikipedia, and you need to stop.
First, as you have already been told, you introduced material (and, in particular, critical material) into a biography of a living person without giving any references to a published source which supports your material. This is absolutely forbidden, but the first time you did it our policy of assuming good faith should lead any other editor to just remove your additions and explain to you that this is not acceptable; and this is what happened.
What you are encouraged to do at that point, is to discuss the matter on the talk page Talk:John de Ruiter, and try to reach agreement with other editors; if you are unable to do so, our dispute resolution procedure would tell you how to proceed.
What you did do, is to insert your unsupported material again. This is called edit warring, and is a quick way to get yourself blocked from Wikipedia.

Assuming that you are in good faith (i.e. that you think the de Ruiter article is unbalanced), your best bet is to start by finding some reliable published sources which are critical of him (not blogs or forums, but material from reputable publishers). If you can find some, then you may edit the article to add only what is supported by the sources you have found (though in view of your recent history, even in this case you should probably start by discussing it on the talk page). If you cannot find such sources, then I'm afraid you must not edit the page further. Unsupported material and original research are not permitted in Wikipedia articles.

I suspect that you believe that it is important to expose something you think is not right about how de Ruiter presents himself. If that is that case, I'm afraid that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and you may not use it in that way.