Why do some Wikipedia admins insist that the rules of Wikipedia be applied all throughout the internet?

Put yourself in their shoes for a minute: You're a loser. You're no good at sports. You're no good as an egghead either; you couldn't form up an article for an academic journal if your life depended on it. You don't do too well at your 9-to-5 job, if you have one. Maybe you've made it to Assistant Manager, but that just means you have seniority over the entry-level lackeys; not that that counts for much, since they'll leave the job soon and you'll remain for long after they've made it in more important jobs.

Then, you go to Wikipedia, you're good at gaming its rules, and you become promoted to admin. Now, if only Wikipedia's rules applied outside the Wikimedia projects, maybe your life wouldn't be so filled with hardship and failure.

Turn off the simulation now, that was so depressing.

I've heard, "The most amusing posts on here are from people asking how to 'unban' themselves fas (sic) though they believe they have an unquestionable right to be on that site. If you have a visitor in your house who behaves inappropriately and you ban him from your home, how would you feel if he keeps coming back, somehow believing he has a right to be in your house."

How funny would it be if you nailed up a big sign on your own house, saying:

"123 ELM STREET -- THE HOUSE ANYONE CAN ENTER"

...and then you banned every person who came into your house and said, "Hey, homeowner, why do you have all of these unwatched, unsourced articles about marginally famous living people, which are susceptible to unattributed libel every minute of the day?"

Now that would be ironic, wouldn't it?

You don't say what rules you are referring to.

Many people, especially teens, seem to forget that each and every website is owned by somebody and that person has the obvious right to set whatever terms and conditions he wishes. Users who violate those terms and conditions can expect to be either warned or banned from the site.

The most amusing posts on here are from people asking how to "unban" themselves fas though they believe they have an unquestionable right to be on that site.

If you have a visitor in your house who behaves inappropriately and you ban him from your home, how would you feel if he keeps coming back, somehow believing he has a right to be in your house

There are no such admins. Wikipedia's admins are most holy and wise.

I get the sense you're a banned user from Wikipedia. We have never believed that rules of Wikipedia in any way apply outside of the site, however, as with any formal organization, libel is a serious thing. Therefore, as with Wikipedia, Y!A shouldn't and can't be used to slam Wikipedia and it's users just for the seeking of a personal agenda. It's sad that people don't understand the basic concept that you can't just spout whatever random crap about a site you got banned from, to try and get some sort of revenge.

If these people wanted to stay at the site, perhaps a bit of following the rules would have been in hand.

Do you have any specific examples of this? And if you do, maybe you could ask those specific admins why they're trying to apply their rules to sites off Wikipedia.