I've just realized a mistake by the signpost headline: It only wants admins and above to do that (which is better I suppose?). I've amended the post body.

Anyone that knows anything about ADL knows they are not reliable whatsoever

Of course. Still, even if someone knows nothing about ADL, by making a simple search with the keywords "ADL zionism" they will have the relevant page that confirms they are zionists. I won't add this link, but I will add the link of:

Jewish Voice for Peace - Our approach to zionism

While it had many strains historically, the Zionism that took hold and stands today is a settler-colonial movement, establishing an apartheid state where Jews have more rights than others. Our own history teaches us how dangerous this can be.

Palestinian dispossession and occupation are by design. (...)

Please elaborate why they are not reliable for things other than Israel/Palestine topics, for which WP:RSP already has a small warning about that area. Just having bias and doing advocacy doesn't necessarily mean that their reporting is unreliable, though as with other biased sources more objective sources are preferred.

Even if ADL were unreliable, that's just one source, and I don't see how that exemplifies that "Wikipedia is a compromised Zionist dumpsterfire". Organizations and individuals are allowed to submit requests to edit pages for which they have a conflict of interest, and I don't see why Wikipedia being open to review them means it's now Israeli-ran from the top-down.