Upvotes & downvotes are not necessarily indicative of how well an answer stays within the rules; I regularly downvote and report answers which lack depth, are parroting wikipedia, or are plain wrong. These answers sometimes have many upvotes, despite the request to "Upvote informative, well sourced answers". Unfortunately, not everyone with an upvote button sticks to that guideline. The number of votes is often more an indication of the visibility of an answer than the quality of it. My advice would be: don't worry too much about the votes on your own answers. If you gave the best answer you could, and it was insightful and in-depth, there's not much else you can do.

As for the sources: provide sources where and when you can, certainly if someone asks for them. If it's a well-known fact which you don't think needs sourcing, and you can't find a source, just state that. But remember that not everyone knows all well-known facts, and that being able to point them somewhere where they can learn more about it would be helpful.

I don't think your postulation on what gets upvoted is an accurate reflection of reality.

The citation rules on this sub are nowhere close to an academic level of rigor. The rule is this: if you state a fact, be prepared to give a source for it. This is not just because people don't believe you; it's also because people want to learn more about the subject. If you can't do this without recourse to wikipedia, then you don't have the level of expertise to be posting on the subject in the first place.

If you have questions on why particular posts might have been viewed as problematic, I would happily look at links either here or via PM.

Should I treat posts on this subreddit more like I'm talking to an alien who knows nothing about history and source every single fact?

In some ways yes, because expertise in one area doesn't make you an expert in another and what counts as a "basic fact" varies quite a bit from field to field and even educational system to educational system. Part of the point of this subreddit is also to provide answers to people without training in that specific subfield.

After having several posts downvoted recently for not being sourced, despite them being very basic or elementary facts, makes me want to seek further clarification. Not only from the mods but the subreddit itself.

I can't see these, since you say you deleted them.

In academia it is generally accepted you don't have to show a source for every single claim or fact. It is more for controversial or obscurbe things, basic dates and facts about a period are taken as granted (e.g. William the Conqueror being a Norman and invading England in 1066).

As has been said, this sub is not academia. That doesn't mean you need less or more sources. However, in the sub, you don't typically need a source for "everything", at least in the experience of answers I've seen.

Should I treat posts on this subreddit more like I'm talking to an alien who knows nothing about history and source every single fact?

No, I can't see why you'd need to. You should provide a rigorous amount of information and provide references if you want to avoid people asking where they can find more/your information, you don't have to source it all straight out of a book. However, you're probably not being asked for sources for facts that "everyone knows". If everyone knew them and they were basic fact, then you wouldn't be asked for a source. If they're "easily findable through Google", then you're not providing the depth they're likely looking for, and the academic rigor expected. I would encourage you to re-read the rules in this regard, as they go into the question of "Depth" that might be giving you some trouble.

I also often see stuff upvoted, so assumingly be "correctly" sourced, that actually only links to some shoddy bbc or blog article. Or they have put in lots of dates and figures. Or a very general reference of some secondry source, often "introdcutory" material to a subject.

I have already asked to see some of this.

If the standards of the subreddit is to exceed the quality of most academic work when it comes to sources and refrences then that is fine by me. But can we have the rule enforced a bit more strictly.

I don't think the standards are anywhere close. Further, as has been mentioned, upvotes are not correlated with the rules of the subreddit.

Or altenatively can we relax the rule and allow the subreddit to self-moderate slightly. Assuming most of us are historians or amateur historians I don't see the problem with slightly more generealised summarys of things that are common knowlege to anyone with a passing interest.

That is what the subreddit is doing, when it downvotes answers that it doesn't believe are sourced or in-depth enough to satisfy the question. That is the subreddit populace's "self-moderation". Now, I'm not saying they're right. A good answer can, on occasion, be downvoted because it doesn't seem correct, because there's not enough depth or because it doesn't account for alternate opinions and interpretations that a more-sourced and more in-depth answer provides in the same thread. But the sub self-moderates by downvotes, and the rules have little to do with it.

TL;DR Where do I draw the line with refrencing? Even stuff that my proffesors wouldn't have considered poorly refrenced has been downvoted on this subreddit. Do I need to show proof for every single fact?

Unfortunately this is very anecdotal. What is your major/focus? That may explain why some rigors are different.

In academia the people responding to questions and writing papers are known in field of study and have spent time in education learning the subject. On the internet it could be anyone that answers a question. Having a source to back something up helps to make sure that it's the people with knowledge that are answering.

I have sat and thought to myself "I know the answer to that" but haven't been able to get a source in time or at all and while I'd love to answer more questions I am not academia it's all amateur and I'd rather not take the risk of telling someone something that I cannot 100% backup.

Big difference in reading a response in a paper or book from Dr. AA Smith than a reply to a question on the internet from XXBIGCANSXX even if they do share the exact same content.

Or altenatively can we relax the rule and allow the subreddit to self-moderate slightly.

I want to just restate the "official" position of the mods on sources since there seems to be continuing misconceptions about it. The rule is, has been for a very long time, and will be for the foreseeable future, that sources are encouraged but not mandatory, unless you are challenged. That is, we won't remove a post because it isn't sourced unless you are asked to give a source (by anyone, not just a mod) and refuse.

I think this is clearly stated in the rules and several other places; if not, please do tell us how we can improve.

My impression is that the sub has a whole has come to expect a greater standard than that specified by the rules. It is self-moderating in the sense that people tend to be much harsher with their downvotes than we are with removing posts, at least when it comes to sourcing. There's little we can do about that.

Also I have repeatedly been told to show a source for my personal interpretation of sourced facts. How is this possible? I thought reasoned interpretation based off sourced facts would be fine. Or am I only allowed to parrot the work of scholars who have came before me?

No, of course not. Although, if people are calling you up on advancing your argument then it is not their issue but yours, as you are clearly not either making A) a compelling case; or B) sign-posting your thinking process. Both of which I'm sure your tutors would not be happy with!

If someone is asking you to back up an interpretation the absolutely worst thing to do is claim it is impossible (because it suggests you cannot explain or justify your interpretation). This is where a familiarity with the primary sources and the ability to explicitly include them in a response is essential. If your interpretation is almost exclusively founded on the secondary material then I would not recommend offering a 'reasoned interpretation', as you will not have done the requisite research of your own which is necessary to set out a balanced and informed interpretation.

This is why, for the most part, I keep within the secondary literature unless it's a topic I'm very familiar with such as Joan of Arc, medieval Wales c.1090-1284, or my flared topics - although those are comfortably broad, especially the 'Medieval Europe' bit!

I've had my share of requests for sources, but it's kind of hard if you've just written a 5 paragraph entry, and someone says "Do you have any sources?" Can we ask that requests for sources be more specific?

Otherwise I look on the difficulty of writing an acceptable article as part of the price we pay for having a high quality subreddit.