Make sure you have a good reason for the check. It will only be accepted to counter vandalism or disruption to Wikimedia wikis. Valid reasons include needing a block of the underlying IP or IP range, disruptive sockpuppetry, vote-stacking, and similar disruption where the technical evidence from running a check would prevent or reduce further disruption.
Be specific in your reasons. Ambiguous or insufficient reasons will cause delays. Explain the disruption and why you believe the accounts are related, ideally using diff links or other evidence.
Make sure there are no local checkusers or policies.
Reason(s): The user, who, in the real world is Mala Prabhat née Chaubey is personally responsible for the creation of articles on Ravindra Prabhat (her husband) on a number of Wikipedias e.g. Bishnoi Manipuri, Ido, Italian, Occidental, Polish and Urdu Wikipedias. As regard to Hindi, Fijian Hindi and English Wikipedias some edits on the article on (1)(Hindi)(2) (Fijian Hindi) and (3)(English) are done by second account (Naziah rizvi) for BLP on Ravindra Prabhat. The editing pattern and article creations of "Naziah rizvi" is similar to "Mala chaubey" i.e. writing mostly on literature and women achievers on Hindi Wikipedia. Basically the issue is of multiple accounts being used for promotional purposes. --Muzammil (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
@Hindustanilanguage: And what is the point of the checkuser request? If the accounts are problematic then block them, you don't need a checkuser. The specific purpose of a checkuser needs to be identified. — billinghurstsDrewth 00:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
User1 is an admin on the Hindi Wikipedia. Holding undisclosed multiple accounts is itself serious issue to entail a block on Hindi Wikipedia. The purpose of this CU is to confirm the same, more so the efforts to use Wikipedias for popularising / promoting an individual. --Muzammil (talk) 00:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I've been directed by Sanjeev Kumar, admin of Hindi Wikipedia to request CU in the discussion link cited. Naziah rizvi a/c has suddenly gained more momentum after User1 became the admin. --Muzammil (talk) 00:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Reason(s): vandalism, personal attacks and harassment. ARASH PT talk 08:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
What is the purpose of undertaking a checkuser? What you have mentioned can be managed by administrators without needing checkuser response. — billinghurstsDrewth 12:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
they all had a problem with me. Lolokh and جمشید23 are blocked indefinitly. Rahnama54 was blocked for vandalism and personal attack just for 3 days and his edits is so similar to these users and I think at least one of them is sock-puppet of Rahnama54. Thanks ARASH PT talk 12:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
If they are problematic, then block them; if not, then they can be left. What you are doing is considered fishing and the issue should be discussed on faWP where administrators can make comment, prior to it being brought here. So at this stage it is premature, and Not done — billinghurstsDrewth 04:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)