I have been banned for a week there, because some of my answers there violated rules that nowhere else on Stack Exchange are imposed.
The problem is the demand that everything be backed up by peer reviewed articles, even though this site's policy allows answers based on personal experience. Of course, you don't want people to give an answer that is incompatible with what has been scientifically established, but what I've stumbled on has nothing to do with such a problem. Also, it should be clear that no medical advice should be given, questions of that sort will be closed. But you can still answer such questions by addressing some relevant aspects appropriately.
We don't have this demand from hard core scientific topics like physics where I'v made the most contributions, so I wonder how on Earth you could have such a policy for a topic like health where the peer reviewed literature does not cover a lot of what many people want to know or what would be helpful in an adequate way.
E.g. this answer by me addressed a relevant issue with someone experiencing back pain. It was also a request for medical advice, so the question had to be closed by the Mods until that time the OP can reword the question. However, the answer by me that the OP accepted turned out to be very relevant, as the OP wrote in the comments that he wasn't doing any core exercises. My original answer did not mention other aspects relevant to weight lifting, as JohnP wrote in the comments, but I corrected my answer to also include a suggestion about that.
But then the notice
Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.
is just ridiculous. First, Stack Exchange site policy allows for answers based on personal experience, you don't always need to back up each and every detail using references. Also, it's not really helpful to tag answers without specifically discussing what should be referenced and why.
A big problem with a subject like health is that the peer reviewed literature does not adequately cover the entire subject, many people will ask questions where the peer reviewed literature does not have good answers on. E.g. in case of back pain, if you would base things on secondary review articles you can't recommend core exercises specifically, as no difference is seen between that and general fitness exercises in studies that have examined the results published in primary research articles. But for weight lifting the situation is not clear, if one only looks in the peer reviewed literature.
However, there is of course a great deal of experience in the field and most people who do serious weight lifting also do core exercises. This knowledge then counts for nothing just because the medical professionals have yet to do rigorous studies. The question one should then ask is why, against this site's policy, one cannot give that information here when it is not contested. Obviously, if people were to disagree and say that actually core exercises are bad for your back, on can have a discussion about that.
This is a more serious problem. The OP should obviously have gone to the doctor a long time ago, the question was closed as it should have been. But my answer which was accepted by the OP, simply addresses how to prepare for the appointment with the doctor considering that the problems have been festering for too long. I'm not familiar with any appropriate articles one could cite here, nor do I think it's necessary to give such references in this case. Now the Mod who tagged this and other answer also downvoted all the tagged answers. So, I don't think we're dealing with objective moderating here.
Final example. Here we can see quite well that sticking to what the Mods calls "good references" leads to problems. Two answers are given, one very strictly based on peer reviewed sources, the other one by me based more on the personal experiences that many in the general public will have. The first answer, while technically correct is not all that useful in practice, if you actually take your time to read the articles to find out how big the effect of e.g. frequent hand washing is in practice, you'll find that it has a marginal effect. While significant and one of the few rigorously proven ways to prevent the common cold it isn't actually going to help the OP deal with his problem.
My answer, while inferior from a rigorous scientific point of view (and I do mention in my answer that "although the rigorous proof that it does anything at all is still lacking...") received 5 downvotes and the tag for more references. The discussion shows that the Mod will only be satisfied with a ref that contains the rigorous proof. Another problem with my answer mentioned by another commenter was corrected later by me.