[[Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Renaming against policy]] The second user (not the first) wants to usurp someone else's name. Policy says that this is done only if the other user has no edits. The other user has two edits, which consist of two test edits of "let's see", made nine months ago. IAR would suggest that allowing someone to usurp this name is in the spirit of the rule. Someone objected to IAR on the grounds that IAR must be used to "improve the encyclopedia" and letting a user have a particular name doesn't improve the encyclopedia. Which seems to violate the spirit of IAR. Do we need to IAR the literal wording of IAR? Of course, I could argue that letting a user get the desired name makes for a friendlier experience at Wikipedia and this encourages users and thus helps improve the encyclopedia. But that's really wikilawyering, and the point of IAR is not having to do that.