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): Both users createdpremature requests for adminship. The former request has since been deleted. The latter request explicitly mentions "I have been in the same field before", and in addition, Armyboy2 immediately requested confirmed status and "welcomed" Devin-Henrickson on the English Wikipedia. Both users, in general, seem to have fun pretendingto be local admins. Even without this evidence, the fact that Armyboy2 filed the request for admin access on his first non-deleted local edit is strong evidence that (s)he is not a new user here. Note that sockpuppetry of the suspected sort here is forbidden by local policy.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Κόκκινος Ποταμός has been spotted as chaotic, aggressive, making personal attacks and acting against policy, by the community and admins, and has been punished. In the particular incident of "notable similarity" he persistently erased ip contributions fetching sources in a discussion page for a deletion of an article, by these edit summaries:
, which were followed by the "notable similarity" comment that revealed to old users the id of the ip. Another user spotted it first so we missed the chance to prove Κόκκινος Ποταμός to be an old user.
Around this behavior of his, there has been this A.N. discussion where, even if he was shown by users to be out of limits and policy, he insisted in revealing of the ip's identity, and got a light punishment for breaking the 3RR only. Since then we have to spot his bad behavior early, but he is still out of control from time to time, leading to edit wars and disruption, using flaming comments.
I am utterly surprised that ManosHacker is using this page to attack me personally. These accusations belong nowhere else than the local Admins' noticeboard and they should be discussed there (if they haven't already). This is a checkuser request page and this is a valid request. Comments like the previous one should be considered misleading. On the other hand, the evidence I've brought to you above is undisputable and technical confirmation is required, so the community can address the problem without any doubt. If ManosHacker believes that other users, inclunding me, use puppets, he is free to request a checkuser. Thank you for your time. --Κόκκινος Ποταμός (talk) 07:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Also, please, notice that the user is not denying that it was him who made the rude comment with the ip and later mentioned me with his account at the Admins' noticeboard. --Κόκκινος Ποταμός (talk) 07:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Not done We do not identify users with ip addresses. Ruslik (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: I beg your pardon, but I am aware of at least one case, during which the checkuser was able to link a user with an IP ("I have done this anyway to check if any more abuse had been taking place"). Why isn't there the ability to execute the checkuser in this case? --Κόκκινος Ποταμός (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)