WP:TRIV does not say that trivia should not be on wikipedia, just that it should not be in greater focus than the article as a whole. And the difference between the editing you described and the anon edits I reverted was that the anon tag additions were the sole basis of his edit history. You have a varied edit history. Also, the tag was put on articles that it clearly did not belong on, such as articles with relevant trivia in very small amounts, and pages that were explicitly labeled as trivia. WP:TRIV says to be cautionary with trivia, not to remove it entirely. And if you interpret it otherwise, that is an issue to debate. The anon disrupted WP to possibly prove the point that trivia does not belong in wp, which is explicitly forbidden. Now, I did not judge him solely because he was anon, but because of the massive amounts of editing done by an anon in a short period of time, without any variation whatsoever. No, being anon is not enough to condemn him. Neither is a specific edit to a lot of pages. It is the fact that he is anon, AN?D doing a massive amount of edits AND said edits are not fully constructive. The toomuchtrivia tag is only to be used when trivia is so numerous as to unbalance an article. Some of the pages, like the Bullshit! article had very little trivia, and the trivia it had was rather constructive. Also, there were some pages explicitly labeled as trivia pages that got the tag. This tag was abused in this case. On the individual articles, should editors feel that the tag was useful, as was seen on the Wonderful Life, Kill Bill, and Dolly Parton pages, I will respect that.