Wikipedia has its problems, and we have to acknowledge (and accept) that. The concept of wiki has certain limitations. Intentional and systemic bias will never disappear. The encyclopedia will never be perfect. So many naysayers see these critisms and predict utter failure for Wikipedia. The important point to realize is that although Wikipedia can be validly criticized, that doesn't mean it's not still a great project. Every system has both flaws and benefits. Wikipedia is already an incredibly useful tool, and it's not going to do anything except become better.
Social problems also inevitably exist. With over a thousand sysops, you can find one acting abusively, and a dozen acting questionably. With over a million articles, some have to be deleted, and it is impossible to form a perfect consensus on them all. There will always be craziness. But, all things considered, in a massive online environment, the Wikipedian community does a damn good job at maintaining sanity.
Wikipedia is not Utopia. It is an encyclopedia. I'm sure that the folks working on the Encyclopædia Britannica have their quarrels now and then as well.
A userpage is a fun diversion; it can help give a Wikipedian a sense of identity, making him feel more like a community member than an anonymous contributor. Userboxes can harmlessly be a part of this userspace concept. However:
Userboxes, in absurd quantities, are useless; any of the useful boxes are overwhelmed by joking and trivial nonsense.
The userboxes project detracts far too much effort from the encyclopedia. Administrators should not have to be concerned with userbox policy, 'derisive userbox' quarreling, and userbox deletion.
There are a lot of people who work hard trying to improve Wikipedia. It's not easy. Causing problems to make a point doesn't accomplish anything. When you see a problem, why make it worse? If you object to violence against animals, you don't go out kicking puppies just to demonstrate how easy it is.
Page deletions should be done by anyone with simple blanking, not through administrative action. All changes should be revertable unless protected for a special reason, and bureaucracy should not be necessary unless conflict arises.
Image ownership...
As Wikipedia articles are not signed, nor should image description pages include their authors. Once you upload content, it is no longer yours. Signing discourages improvements by the rest of the community.
I used to love the concept that every word could have its own article, but I have come to realize that we can be much more productive by combining similar concepts. With article separation, the same information is repeated in different locations. Merging allows for much better organization, and an overall more useful result to readers.
