[nobody9999]

>> an analysis of existing links has shown that most of its uses can be replaced.

>Oh? Do tell!

They do. In the very next paragraph in fact:

   The guidance says editors can remove Archive.today links when the original 
   source is still online and has identical content; replace the archive link so 
   it points to a different archive site, like the Internet Archive, 
   Ghostarchive, or Megalodon; or “change the original source to something that 
   doesn’t need an archive (e.g., a source that was printed on paper)

[Kim_Bruning]

> archive.today

Hopeless. Caught tampering the archive.

The whole situation is not great.

[nobody9999]

I just quoted the very next paragraph after the sentence you quoted and asked for clarification.

I did so. You're welcome.

As for the rest, take it up with Jimmy Wiles, not me.