Some people say. "I does what I want to" is this in any way relative to "I always do what I want to" or it's totally wrong to have it so
"Does" is the third person present tense conjugation of the verb "to do". The correct conjugation is the first person present tense conjugation "do". Also, one should leave off "to" at the end, or else use the full phrase, so it would be more correct to say, "I do what I want" or "I do what I want to do", although the latter is a bit formal sounding.
Is this in any way relative to "I always do what I want to"?
Is it totally wrong to have it so?
It is dialectical. It is also a rather recent occurrence. In AAVE, an uninflected does conveys the aspect of habitual action. So yes, it means what you said in AAVE. I do, he do, I does, he does. Once you quit inflecting for tense and person, you end up with a whole roster of leftover irregular verbs you can deploy for grammatical aspect marking. Does is the latest in a series.
E.M. run an gone to Suzie house. (=SE "EM went running to Suzie's house.")
But I does go to see people when they Ø sick. (=SE "But I usually go to see people when they are sick."
De mill bin to Bluffton dem time. (=SE "The mill was in Bluffton in those days.")
Note the characteristically creole absence of past tense and possessive inflections in 6, the absence of linking verb are and the presence of unstressed habitual does in 7, and the use of unstressed bin for past and dem time (without s, but with pluralizing dem) in 8.
The examples are from Gullah creole in South Carolina. This does is a longstanding part of several creoles, but it is relatively new in US urban areas and may not be related to creole usage.
Outside of these dialects, it is just wrong. Standard English doesn't much concern itself with grammatical aspect, but creoles and dialects often repurpose words in order better convey aspect.