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): It appears that the first user creates the two others users for persistent vandalism of the page ET1. But they thing that me and the other user with the name Jeanis 12345, we are pupet accounts and control us the user Γιουγκοσλαβια. Please, do the checkuser so prove that we don't have any relationship. Timmy terner (talk) 13:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Can you explain why you are blocked on elwiki? —MarcoAurelio 09:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I'd prefer if this request is endorsed by an user in good standing -an admin would be ok- as CU requests requires good faith and not be used as a tool against disputes. —MarcoAurelio 19:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm leaning to decline this request. CheckUsers to "proof someone's innocence" ain't usually carried at this project, nor we have a custom of doing them. I'll let other stewards to have a look at this one though. —MarcoAurelio 14:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Blocks are clearly attributed to user activity rather than accusations of sockpuppetry. Checkuser not clearly required. — billinghurstsDrewth 13:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Reason(s): The user has had similar edits on the same article that the other two had before (including the article I showed above). Since the accounts belongs to a banned user, please specify all of his/her Sockpuppets too if they were the same. ● MehranDebate 09:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: Could you please verify this request too? Actually the request is going to be stale after one week! ● MehranDebate 05:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Reason(s): The first account has edits in the same articles the second has had (I have listed some of them above). The second account has been blocked before and I am afraid if the user has abused socking to evade block. Since the accounts belongs to a banned user, please specify all of his/her Sockpuppets too if they were the same. Thanks --Kazemita1 (talk) 20:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry but you copied my previous requests even without one minor change! I am a sysop in fawiki and as far as I know, the user has not been banned and this request is not legitimate based on the above facts. ● MehranDebate 02:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Apologies for the copyright violation! But user:Seiavoshy was editting during the time user:Maahmaah was blocked. As for the original banned user, I am talking about the notorious user:Truth Seeker. who has abundance of socks--Kazemita1 (talk) 07:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
All right, that would be an acceptable reason, however I did not understand the relationship between Truthseeker and the accounts. ● MehranDebate 07:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Closed Please take discussion back to local wiki to determine the need and value of a checkuser. — billinghurstsDrewth 13:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
@billinghurst: The consensus in the above discussion was that the request is legitimate. Can you do the checkuser? Because right after this request, both of the users announced retirement Seiavoshy, Maahmaah; but because of the delay in the process, they started their activity again. Best, Taha (talk) 03:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Unrelated between the two accounts. I do see a relationship between Maahmaah and Basp1, though the latter account only edited for a month.
To note that if you are going to start using the "Truth Seeker" reasoning then we would be expecting to see editing in that style mentioned for the check, so we have some evidence that it is the user. I think that checks like this should be proposed with admins at faWP first. — billinghurstsDrewth 11:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)