Once again, an "infographic" at InformationIsBeautiful.net contributes very little beyond the underlying prose it's based on (in this case a Google spreadsheet, which is actually <i>easier</i> to read).
I love how the death star article is on there. Though I don't know that this qualifies as an infographic: the only info on it is title + num_edits. The relative sizes aren't informative, their locations aren't informative (horizontal or vertical, I'm sure the Jesus article is still highly edited).<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars</a> for the data. Not sure where to get the edit counts, aside from checking the history statistics.
One of these I remember quite well--Angels and Airwaves "is" a band vs. "are" a band. Wikipedia's summary:<p><i>More than 40 reverts in one hour by two editors. The point of contention? Whether "Angels & Airwaves" is a band or "Angels & Airwaves" are a band. (British English requires "are," as the band comprises multiple people, while American English requires "is", as the band is a singular entity.) ALL-CAPS edit summaries laced with profanity and death threats liberally employed by one side. Stopped only after admin intervention, but resumed again two minutes after the 3RR block expired. Both get blocked for seven days, and one of them gets his block extended to eight days after stating he doesn't care as long as the other side gets a block of same length. The other side keeps his seven-day block.</i><p>I was the admin in that case. It was my proudest moment in all of Wikipedia adminship.