This isn’t true. @David (not Irvine) was the founding father (before me), and this is your opinion of ‘correct’, not a fact.
I’m also pretty sure I am not the only mod nominated by the community but we can disagree on that.
I don’t know what you mean by your appointment being questioned. What I was saying is that I don’t recall any moderator being questioned as to their suitability at the time that person was appointed. Obviously some have questioned the process, and I’m fine with that.
So I’ve no recollection of your appointment being questioned. I was asked if I had any ideas, I suggested you and said why. I don’t recall who we had then, but Francis was admin, represented Maidsafe, and was given that responsibility by Maidsafe. It was his decision AFAIK, and the process was nothing to do with me beyond responding when he asked if I had any suggestions. Over time the whole process evolved but I have never had the authority to approve or veto an appointment, and I stepped down after about a year.
Since replying above I’ve remembered that I made another nomination so, probably three suggestions in total - although this person declined. But like you he’s also on the list of people Jabba gave as so unhappy with the forum moderation that they left.
So of the three people I can recall nominating, two had strong and different views about moderation than I did and are among the six people Jabba mentioned as having been driven away by me and the clique I’m supposed to have been orchestrating.
The idea that I was setting up some kind of authoritarian clique is a fantasy.
I have advocated my views on moderation, but the fact those views largely coincide with the policy of the forum is not just down to me and my renowned charisma 
, or some superhuman ability to impose my will on this community. 
It has though made me an easy target for some people’s disaffection. I probably also get more praise than is due from those who like things the way they are, so I’m not complaining, but I want to correct misleading and inaccurate portrayals of my authority and influence.
While I was a mod we regularly consulted the community and had lengthy discussions about moderation - all those discussions are there for anyone to go back and read. If the community had wanted big change, I would have accepted it. If there was agreement reached on something concrete I would have advocated for it, or if I didn’t think it feasible would have stepped aside for others to implement. But we never got to that stage as I’ve pointed out many times.
Those who want change must get the community, not the mods, to agree to something concrete, and the excuses given for not having done so are not valid (as I’ve explained above).
Instead they tell the mods how bad they are, without agreement on exactly what is to be done. Different suggestions come from here and there, but not something concrete that has been agreed by the community. This effectively ignores the community while pretending to advocate on its behalf, and the excuse for this is the system and the mods not allowing them to be heard. Catch 22 for moderators.
If you want a substantial change, it is up to you to do the hard work of writing a serious proposal with enough detail for the community to understand and debate, and the mods will I believe be happy to put that topic on the front page as it deserves. Once it has been debated, revise if necessary and put it to a vote. I’ve said this several times in the past, but nobody has done this.
You could start by setting out a formalised version of the process I’ve just described. I think it would pass easily, and then use that process to tackle moderation and anything else you want.