I find what you are doing to the site troublesome.
I think I do very little to the site. Most of my activity (including editing other people's posts) is as a user, not as a moderator.
Users (the community) have told me e.g. here and here that they don't want much moderation and so I don't give them much. As one recent example, I posted this comment instead of deleting the answer.
After the "Moderation policies for Questions" were defined, there were a few further topics about moderation of questions (e.g. here and here), but no consensus (i.e. a vote from several users) that the existing policy be changed (and so the status quo continues).
In this question, which I think is what triggered this current meta-topic, Lanka closed the question. I didn't choose to close it (especially given that Dhammadhatu had proven able to answer it), nevertheless I also found Lanka's decision justifiable and and I didn't want to contradict him. My experience with teams makes me inclined to feel that often any decision is better than no decision, so if and when Lanka makes a good decision then I'd need good/compelling reason to undo it (and I didn't have that reason). After you edited the question, after other users voted to reopen it, then I had good reason to vote too, to reopen it, and I did.
I feel I'm hardly "doing" anything "to the site" at all, except participating as a user and (as you said) "justifying the status quo" on Meta.
In this comment you wrote that it should have been reopened sooner (or that it should never have been closed). Be careful what you wish for: the site cannot please everyone, we already had helpful users leave for various reasons. If you did enact a policy that no question is ever closed, then whatever quality standards (and benefit) we have now might deteriorate further.
A close-improve-reopen cycle is normal, built-in to the StackExchange system -- it's how the system works, it's what SE's experience (with other SE sites) tells us does work. If you find the site helpful you should consider allowing it to continue to function as it's designed to.
You are not flexible, you only selectively listen to some people
I try to listen to everyone, and to obey a "quorum" of users. This topic for example was me trying to define a consensus between four users (including me), i.e. everyone who chose to participate in the topic.
If it's only you and me disagreeing, and I do nothing but allow the status quo to continue, I don't think that's necessarily me "failing to benefit the site at large". That's just you and me, having sightly different opinions on a boundary-case.
you more often try to reserve status quo than take a different action
I think that's true.
- My initial job was to understand the status quo, i.e. learn everything that everyone had written on Meta
- My next job (as an experienced Stack Exchange user) was to explain the status quo, e.g. to explain to users of this site how other Stack Exchange sites work (how they're governed and moderated, how they're used, what they're for, what they're not for, what people can and can't do, what's normal)
- My next job was to define what the status quo ought to be for this site (by discussing that and reaching various consensus with quorums of users)
- Now I think my job is to help implement the status quo (e.g. to moderate or not moderate more-or-less as agreed in the various moderation policies), and to continue to explain the status quo (e.g. moderation policies) to people who find them questionable
I also try to support users' rights to do things they're allowed to do, and to protect them from things I'm supposed to protect them from (abuse, low-quality posts, hostility), etc.
My doing that includes supporting other moderators (i.e. their responsibility to make decisions about moderation).
Sometimes I disagree with other moderators; if or when that happens you won't see it (because that will happen in a private chat room), so don't be surprised if it seems as if we always tend to agree.
Also risking of decremental user experience (not being flexible) as not all Buddhists are from english speaking countries.
I hope I'm not seen as hostile to non-English-speaking users. I often edit posts, that I understand and which are written in slightly imperfect English, because I hope that "perfect English" is easier for everyone (especially non-English users) to understand. I imagine someone trying to read the post using Google Translate, which isn't good at translating any mis-spelled words etc.
In this question I didn't really understand the question well enough to edit it. I thought the question was too short. Actually, like Lanka, I thought it was missing the actual question (that it was statements rather than a question).
I also thought that it was a basic question. There are already 200 topics on th subject of rebirth and anatman -- I wasn't sure that we needed another, nor how to answer it.
Perhaps this can be deleted since high reputation users can see it any way if it needs revisiting.
I don't really want to censor you. If you want to self-censor (i.e. stop complaining) that's OK with me, but this kind of thing is more-or-less on-topic for Meta (although time-consuming and possibly a duplicate of previous topics like this one or this one). The ideal would be for us to reach some consensus, agreement, understanding, or at least agree to disagree.
Meta is for all users not just high-reputation users (though I hope I try extra hard to accommodate high-reputation users, partly because they've proven valuable to the site and partly because they should have acquired enough experience with the site to know what they're talking about).
I am hoping others will chime in when improvements can be made or not in agreement.
Another reason to leave this topic open, then. Or a "chat" room is another way to discuss things.