No. Nothing in the wand rules notes that anything about the spells stored in the wand changes. While the list of spells in the wands are all spells that can target other creatures, there is no reason why a wand cannot cast a spell of "personal" range on the person who can trigger the spell.
A feat or PrC is needed for the wand to behaved differently. Extending personal spells to others can be done through the Spellguard of Silverymoon PrC (Player's Guide to Faerûn).
Yes, but only via some finagling. A potion/oil only has one target normally, and the imbiber may not select additional targets even if he would be allowed to normally as the caster of the spell. However, a number of spells that can be made into potions affect creatures other than their direct target(s) in some way. None of the methods of doing this involve any decisions normally made by the caster at the time of casting, as:
Potions are like spells cast upon the imbiber. The character taking the potion doesn't get to make any decisions about the effect—the caster who brewed the potion has already done so.
A cursory overview of ways spells do this by means of example follows:
Wandering Star Motes: because this spell can acquire new targets after being brought into effect, it can be used to affect other creatures (though the initial target must be the imbiber).
Enlarge Person: This spell's effect changes how the drinker can affect others in some ways, and so affects them indirectly. This is how most potions work.
Moment of Greatness: This spell is capable of being made into a potion, but also affects those in an area. The area effect functions as normal, and may affect various creatures other than the imbiber.
Draconic Reservoir: This spell gives the subject of the spell the ability to make choices about the spells' effects, including the targets of some possible new effects. These choices may still be able to be made by an imbiber.
Blood Scent: This spell has multiple targets. While the imbiber cannot make use of this, technically the potion's creator could, though things might go badly if the potion was used in the wrong circumstances. In order to target multiple creatures, the creator would need to make all the choices normally made when selecting a target at the time of casting when the potion is made. What those choices are is unclear RAW, but at a minimum includes enough information to uniquely identify who would be affected regardless of when the potion is used.
The imbiber must certainly still be a target, but it is possible that other targets may be added, as target selection is a choice normally made while casting the spell and the rules do not anywhere expressly forbid multi-target potions.
See also: Volatile Vaporizer
Best Answer
Maybe
The way the rules interact is ambiguous, and depends on how one looks at the rules for potionmaking and universal potions.
"Yes" Interpretation: "Universal potions are potions"
Universal potions are, in their class feature, defined as "a potion." Brew Potion can be used to make all items in the subset of "potions," so it would work fine with universal potions. Thus, you can brew them of higher-level spells, although as noted in KRyan's answer, this creates a rules hole about their cost to create.
This interpretation is consistent with how the rules work in some other places, such as a "+1 flaming longsword" still being a "longsword," an "arcane spell" still being a "spell," and any other numerous pairings of adjective and noun not invalidating that noun's nouniness.
I personally lean towards this interpretation. It creates an unfortunate problem where you need to extrapolate the costs (thanks to the classes being from completely different books and settings), but it's the answer that fits best within the existing framework of 3.5 and the precedence of other abilities.
However, there are a couple ones on the opposite side of the spectrum that I think might be other likely conclusions:
"No" Interpretation: "Universal potions are potions, but..."
This interpretation hinges on the idea that universal potions, while they are potions (they're called out as such explicitly, after all), have their own special rules that override the normal rules for potions. Similar to rectangles and squares, all universal potions are potions, but not all potions are universal potions.
The question addressed by this interpretation is whether or not this exception to the normal potion rules:
Takes precedence over this one:
And it's a valid reading to say that it does override any and all other exceptions. D&D 3.5 is an exception-based ruleset, and juggling multiple rules that say opposite things is always an awkward scenario.
"No" Interpretation: "Universal potions are not actually potions"
This interpretation is similar to the above, but a bit more extreme. The idea behind it is that, regardless of the text describing it, a universal potion is as different from potion as an eternal wand is from a wand, or a runestaff is from a staff. Universal potions have their own special rules for creation listed in the ability, and they do not interact at all with normal potion rules. This interpretation would also lead to them not being able to be used with things like potion bracers, infusions that target potions, and the like. Of these three interpretations, this one causes the most rules breaks and has the least support, but it is still a possible answer here, because of the precedent set by the above three listed items. Personally, I do not think this is a very valid answer. It is a possible reading, but not a good one. Unlike with eternal wands, universal potions are explicitly called out as potions in their description.
So really, check with your DM
Most online D&D 3.5 optimization and builds assumes a permissive DM, because the game is broken in enough places that the DM's hand is needed for it to function. This is one of those cases, in my opinion. The rules interaction could be read in one of several ways, and a couple of those ways are fairly unfun. The most stringently-read way ("universal potions are potions; it says it right there in the ability") has a rules hole that results from it (like many combinations in 3.5), and is a bit stronger than the other ones.
I don't think that there's a true RAW answer either way here, however, so the best way to solve this is to build assuming the answer that enables the build, then to discuss the question with your group before using it.