We all know that a huge part of the Wikia community is reviving old Wikias. After all, that is the whole reason for the adoption process, is it not? Well, believe it or not, there is a correct way to file an adoption request, just like anything else on Wikia.
Guidelines are there for a reason!
You know what I see all too often in adoption requests? The adopter either has too little edits, or has been there too little of an amount of time. Don't you think there is a reason for the adoption guidelines to be RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR FACE?! And they explicitly state that you must have been editing there every day - or close to it - for at least a week.
Another often unfollowed guideline: the one that says "Admins must be inactive for 60 days or more." Hello people?! This is to revive dead Wikias, not pull a perfectly active one out from under another user, just because you want it, or you just don't like the admin. Wikia is supposed to be a collaborative community, where Wikians work together to make great things. If there is an admin on that Wikia, they were most likely promoted for good reason. Ask them what they need, rather than privately scheming how to get the Wikia to be your own. So, say the admin is an unfit admin; use Special:Contact and ask for them to be demoted. Then attempt your adoption.
So, why do you think you are eligible to be the user who is to claim ownership and rights of a Wikia when you are blocked? I don't understand why users think that they are. Here's the thing: I wouldn't trust a user that has been blocked anywhere for any reason, to be my admin. Simple as that.
And perhaps the one rule that is the most like common sense: if there are other active users, ask before you adopt! How would you feel if maybe you had a problem with a user, then two weeks later they were an admin? That would really mess up your Wikia experience, wouldn't it? So, before you adopt, reach a community consensus! If you win by majority, it is then the opposer(s)'s problem. But, just because you don't like a user doesn't mean you can use your power unjustly. Other people might have great plans for the wiki, and could adopt it out from under you if you are unfit.
You aren't always going to have a successful adoption
If you find a really awesome Wikia that has died, you might really, really want that Wikia to call your own. But, if requirements aren't met, you won't get the Wikia. Plain as that. Not to say you can't come back and try again later but frankly, Staff members have better things to do than deny requests that the user should have known wouldn't pass. Filing an adoption request does not mean it will pass.
Why does having Admin rights affect your editing?
So, why exactly do you need Sysop rights to begin editing on a Wikia? You can edit anything on any Wikia except MediaWiki and protected pages, without added rights. That is plenty enough to spruce up a Wikia by adding articles to editing existing articles and adding content to uploading photos and videos. So, tell me: Why can't you edit without sysop rights?
Harassing a Wikia community
Chances are, if anybody in the community is opposing your adoption, you are in the wrong. If you have tried to "pull authority" on other users while you do not have rights, you should not be granted rights. The only outcome of that I can see is an admin abusive of power.
Having admin rights does not make you the boss
Wikia is a collaborative community where all users work together as one body. Admins serve only as protectors of this. When an admin tells you to stop something, or bans you, it is only to protect the welfare of the community, and to make the stay pleasant for all users in the community. It does not make you a "greater" or "higher" user, it only gives you the tools necessary to protect the community from any negative users or effects toward the community.