I realize that - I wasn't intending on banning anyone. I'm trying to detemine whether when I see an IP# from aol on 3 different stat logs relevant to me specifically as being - for example 123.456.78.# (service doesn't show the rest), when I had specific knowledge said specific computer user was visiting the site in a specific timeframe (thus confirming at least that this computer's IP was 123.456.78.# regardless), and then later see a new member from aol with a similar username style to the 123 user, who ALSO shows an IP# as being 123.456.78.90 that it'd be the same computer accessing the sites and the forum. I realize that 50 different people could be using one computer pulling up the sites at any given time - not what I'm asking. In this particular case, however, it would be just one person at the same computer, with an IP# of 123.456.78.# and now I see a new member with the IP# 123.456.78.90 showing up on the forum.
Same computer (user)? Or warped random fluke of nature?
I know it was rather long but I wanted to at least provide enough details. What I'm not looking for is confirming THAT it appears to be a coincidence or appears suspicious - I know that, which is why I came to ask
I'm looking for what would be the correct assessment in this circumstance, based on how IP numbers are assigned. It would seem to me that if 5000 people in any given area are assigned the same IP of 123.456.78.90 then trying to log stats is pointless - could be anybody or could be one. Or could be 400 different people. I'd always been under the impression (since it's always explained using the analogy) that IPs are similar in nature to a phone number - one number, one computer - as opposed to IPs being similar to an "area code" where it could be any number of people in that location.
Which is the correct way to recognize the relevance of IPs, and a single IP showing up consistently in 3 different cases as KNOWN to be someone specific, and having the same IP show up on a 4th location, can it be correct to say it's the same person there too?
Thanks again and I do appreciate that you replied.