Yes, the burden to provide citations to add it back rests on the person who wants to reinstate challenged information. This helps to tend towards an article that has more cited content over time as anything questionable only gets reinserted with sourcing. I think this is the best balance between allowing anyone to add information and to have verifiable articles.
Except that's not what is happening. If you state that the source is not verifiable or reliable (even if it is) then it will likely get removed. Often the admin will block the editor who readds the material without even checking the source. If that doesn't work then the next tactic is to accuse the editor of violating [[WP:UNDUE]] and create an unbalanced article. An admin will then come along and see that because the editor used a citation template via a named <ref> tag that the number of characters rapidly increases, and just assume that the material added is causing the article to become unbalanced.
Alternatively, another tactic is to remove the entire section, not just the bit that is disputed. After the editor reverts 3 times, no matter if they object in the talk page they will be blocked.
The ultimate way to keep material removed, however, is to claim that it violates BLP. Due to the paranoia around this area (which is admittedly somewhat justified) no admin will look into it further and the default position is that the material is forbidden no matter how absurd or invalid the claim.
After you've been reverted, incidentally, it appears that the end run around discussion and consensus is to switch the archival boy tag to about 7 days and add a collapse template on the discussion thread, which prevents it from being seen by default and effectively silences the one who was blocked - which means appeals and review of the discussion become largely meaningless.
I don't know if you know this, but every article has a history of changes. Admins look at the diffs of these changes and can see exactly what was added or removed. And about edit-warring and BLP violations, again, the best way to resolve those are using the talk page. For the former the alternative is a game of attritions, and for the latter the possible harm is too great to not arrive at a consensus for the change first. You sure do seem to have something personal against Wikipedia admins, but they don't even get involved unless you've been vandalizing or editing very disruptively. Even then, they are not arbitrators of content, but behavior.
I not only know it, but it's what I used to do on a regular basis. But please, have a look at the [[Salim Mehajer]] article's talk page, and tell me if it's reasonable that extensive discussions have been collapsed. Or perhaps maybe the edit comment that the character limit increased from about 15,000 to 30,000 characters, but that 8,500 or so characters were references to verifiable or reliable sources. Or that an entire section was constantly removed, even though I asked what the specific issue was repeatedly.
It's funny how many journalists have contacted me about this and commented that the situation is ridiculous. They can see it, but it appears admins cannot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden