Talk:Demonoid

message: On the Demonoid forums, a thread was started on "the meaning of Demonoid". A moderator said that name was meant to be demo-noid (not demon-oid),as the site was originally meant for sharing demos. And I quote:
It was originally created to share demos.
It is demo-noid, not demon-oid.
Two other moderators confirmed this, and then Umlauf said:
Deimos created the site.
Deimos' hobby was to create community websites. Game related, activity related, whatever. At some point he created demo-noid, a community for unsigned heavy metal bands, where they could share their demo tapes.
The same domain was used later for this site
The logo came later.
Beryllium (talk) 00:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Demo Noid?

message: Like I said: No, the bittorrent tracker is one of the most visited sites on the entire internet. The band is practically unknown.
And it's a 2 way disambig, which are usually disambigued with the "This article is about the BitTorrent tracker. For the metal band, see Demonoid (band)" tag. And in this case when there's such a ridiculous margin of notability, demonoid clearly should not be a 2 entry disambiguation page but rather be the actual page for the tracker. 
I just made this a REDIRECT to preserve the edit history, I'll let the admins merge and mop up, etc. Demonoid (BitTorrent) should be moved to Demonoid. --⁪frotht 02:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unambiguously disambiguousely disambiguous...  probably. Cowicide 12:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Does this article really need that enormous image of the entire demonoid.com home page? It seems a little ridiculous dystopianray 01:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial comments

message: See Talk:Demonoid re naming issues --⁪frotht 02:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please

message: Most of the supposed citations in this article point to unreliable sources from uncredited organizations or anonymous bloggers.  This is hardly considered a legitimate source.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.65.250 (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: False references

message: Perhaps the quality of demonoid's torrents should be noted here. I've heard that their albums are mislabeled, in the best case being all lowercase letters, in the worst, poorly spelled and misdated. Anything?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.100.218.156 (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha, obviously you're either terribly misled or willyfully misleading.  People often even post FLAC copies with .cue files and all, can't get much more complete than that. Maybe you're just self-righteously attacking piracy, and there are arguments to be made there sure, but you're not exactly helping your cause with blatantly false accusations.  Then again, I guess I only download GOOD music.  Maybe if you're downloading the new Simple Plan album the 9-year-old that posted it didn't tag it properly, I dunno. Phil Urich 04:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I know this is the discussion page and all, but can we refrain from providing opinions on things that don't have any bearing on the subject at hand (i.e. whether or not Simple Plan is "good music.") Harts4Life 05:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, saying "their albums" is incorrect. Tons of different people post torrents on Demonoid, and the quality/organization of files thus varies (and changes over time as users leave/join). MrVibrating 20:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a member of What.cd and other than bit rate consistency, album uploads on both are pretty much the same.  It's not that big of a problem because most people like to tag and name their files their own way.  Bit rates though, are a problem.  You can't change the bit rate, which is why What.cd and those other prestigious private music trackers adhere to super-strict standards. LuckyDucky (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Quality

message: People are using this as some sort of forum, I have just reverted a forum like sentence, please lock the article from people or at least put a warning up!.  I'm too new at it to put a warning up. LOTRrules 20:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lock

message: Ok folks, here it is. Demonoid is down. It has been for aroun 18 hours. The reason is down is unkown. It hasnt been RAIDed, shutdown, terminated, deleted, burned, mamed, or thrown under a bridge. There have been speculation as demonoid.com whereabouts. Well the rumours are false, the site isnt very creditable--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 16:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't even have a Wikipedia article, few spelling errors as well. The actual site looks more like a second My Documents folder with some "funny" pictures and game stats. --Bloigen 16:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove it

message: Since this page is fully protected, could an admin make the following minor fixes:
*"Shutdown" should not be capitalized in the "September 2007 Shutdown" section title per WP:MSH
*Dates shouldn't have "th" (25th, 26th, etc) PER WP:DATE, and they should also be fully linked per WP:DATE (September 25, 2007) to allow for user's preferences to kick in.
*Also refs should go after punctuation per WP:CITE.
Thanks in advance. Aaron Bowen 21:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some minor fixes

message: Better put something about how trying to access Demonoid from a Canadian IP address now bumps you off to a redirect page. Also, a way around this short of emigration would be greatly appreciated.  Cain the Mad 04:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See proxy server. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 20:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a howto guide, or a forum. Please do not use it as one. Sfacets 02:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Was this meant as a comment for its own subsection, or are you responding to the above two comments by User:Cain the Mad and me? I'm not sure if you're advising people to stop using the article as a forum-style page for speculation and discussion (completely valid), or advising us to not discuss topics related to the article on its talk-page (less valid). Clarify, please?  --PeruvianLlama(spit) 03:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I take it by your response then, that your first comment was meant to advise us to not discuss topics on the talk page. Cain the Mad asked if there was a way around such "blocking" of IP ranges. Such technology exists, is widely known, and in fact has a well-written and documented Wikipedia article. I fail to see how providing a link to a Wikipedia article constitutes using the talk page as a howto guide. I appreciate that you're trying to keep things clean and functional, but your initial comment reads as being curt and dismissive, particularly given that there was no egregious breach of protocol. Cheers. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 06:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Canadians banned

message: Do we even need discussion of outages? An encyclopedia is not a pseudo-support forum. All it should state is what Demonoid is, what it does, and so on. If it goes offline temporarily, big deal. If it goes off permanently, THEN state the date it closed down and leave it as a historic article. Does Brittanica or World Book list every closure of the Empire State Building, etc? Same principle should apply here. SJ2571 08:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems notable in that once the outage was over, all Canadian IPs were blocked from accessing the website. This is relevant to the ongoing P2P struggle between BitTorrent trackers and the RIAA/MPAA organizations. If it were just a website outage with no consequences, then I'd agree it should be removed. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 18:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, I didn't consider that the outage (for now) permanently affects Canadians. SJ2571 13:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion of major outages builds a history leading to the current state of the site (shut down).  Once the final fate of Demonoid is known, the outage history can be made more concise. 150.101.64.212 (talk) 13:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Outage discussion off-topic?

message: Who put it up for deletion, and why? El Paulio 22:42, 13 November 2007 (GMT)
:69..110.65.250 did, with the edit summary "Weasel Wording. Spam. Vandalism. Accuracy. Take your pick. This page needs to be deleted." Not exactly following SOP, if you ask me. It's not "Advertising or other spam without relevant content", Vandalism of an article is not grounds for deletion, nor is inaccuracy - both are grounds for fixing. -82.111.241.124 23:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted the AfD. Let's see if 69.110.65.250 is up for a debate rather than an edit war. -Cohen the Bavarian 23:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately it would appear as if they are not up for debate, they reverted it, I'm not entirely sure this person understands the rules by the aforementioned edit summary. Revrant 04:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did reverted an AfD earlier yesterday from the same ip. However, the grounds are that it's malformed, as it's up to an AfD to decide whether the page should or should not be deleted. So, if the IP nominate it again, this time in the proper form, don't revert it. Let me know if there are any news (not monitoring the page much). Happy editing everybody, Snowolf How can I help? 07:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: CRIA PUT IT UP FOR DELETION, WHO ELSE? 122.163.170.222 (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where are you getting that information from? AND WHY ARE YOU WRITING LIKE THIS? Jason2gs (talk) 08:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: DON'T YOU KNOW?! ALL CONSPIRACY THEORISTS MUST TYPE LIKE THIS. 72.11.90.106 (talk) 01:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Up for deletion?

message: Not only would it solve 95+% of users queries/visits to the entry, but it's definitely a key resource for any Wiki entry pertaining to a website, server, etc... Future thoughts: References/URLs to mirrored/archived torrents off parent site, ban RIAA/CRIA affiliated "users" from viewing entry, especially banning Canadians.  71.167.130.220 09:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure I completely understand you. You mean write something to check periodically if Demonoid is up or not? Jason2gs (talk) 08:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure that's what is being asked for, which to me seems fairly ridiculous.  Not only would it be server intensive for wikipedia and demonoid, but would at best provide updates only a few hours ahead of how fast wikipedians could update the article.  I'm sure if Demonoid went down again (or back up, or whatever) the first people to find out will jump to Wikipedia to see if it's up to date or not. dimo414 (talk) 08:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Embedding a "real time" tracker status on parent wiki page?

message: On December 25 2007 Deimos posted the following on Subdemon stating the site will come back online soon.
"If everything goes correct and right I should be able to have a new host soon.  The site should be open around Jan. 10 2008 but no guaranties."''
I've removed the above as the forum topic is no longer available and I couldn't find anything else on Subdemon. carocat (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That may well be, but as there are no sources for it, it's nothing for Wikipedia. carocat (talk) 04:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: December 2007

message: I visited the site yesterday and noticed a change in their message. They both 'said' basically the same thing, but this message was worded a little differently. It's still just circumstantial, but it's something. Jason2gs (talk) 08:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Tracker is back up too. Sebastian32 (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: January 2008

message: Because it was voted down for deletion at least once, when I tried to look it up (2007-07-11) - I'm curious as to how long there was no article at Demonoid. Give info on who deleted it, since that information goes away from the deletion logs. ~ender 2008-02-11 02:49:AM MST
:It was deleted, it was nominated for deletion where the discussion kept it. carocat (talk) 09:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: How long was Wikipedia w/o the Demonoid article?

message: :Image:Demonoid.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Demonoid.jpeg

message: Let's put an end to the revert wars over downtime and outages.  Demonoid is a popular site, and as such, is subject to outages at times.  Wikipedia is NOT a place to document such outages.  WP documents if the site is completely down or taken off-line.  If there is an issue with certain regions of the world not being able to access it, then that is notable. But, that must also be cited from an outside resource (per WP:OR), not from your own experiences. This is to ensure that the problem is really because of the site or legislature, and not just because of a broken DNS server somewhere. Due to the nature of this site, many believe that just because a server goes down then it must be because of a government conspiracy or some other nonsense.  This should not be reflected in this article until a non-biased statement is made to that effect from a citable source. Rurik (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just gave a source and you can see months of replies with people from many countries with the same problem. I hope people don't ask the source to be from NY Times or something like that or the entire document wouldn't exist by now. Lucyu2 (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Lucyu2, that is a good source. Up until this point, many people had no clue which countries were being blocked. I'm sure that now people can find other sources to cite that will be in English for this article, but that source does back up the article entry that you made.  Thank you. Rurik (talk) 02:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Outages

message: Can someone insert this for me? I don't know the right formatting and am too lazy to do the research. Ludjer (talk) 22:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Insert what? Rurik (talk) 10:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe Ludjer is referring to :Image:Demonoid.jpg, which was just uploaded. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Printscreen

message: over here in Australia i can certify that is working and accessible
if more info is required just query me back  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.100.155.62 (talk) 06:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  australia 

message: Is Demonoid still shutdown by a legal challenge? Does this category mean 'once upon a time' or 'currently'? The Wurdalak (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category Shutdown by a Legal Challenge 

message: In the first paragraph of the general description, 
Demonoid is referred to as a semi-public tracker.
The tracker Demonoid uses is entirely public.  
Anyone with a Demonoid torrent file can load it up and use it. 
The website and the forums are private because they require membership to access them. 
This does not make it a semi-public tracker. 
Further, the citation for this in the article itself doesn't even mention 
this "semi-public" description. 
Frankiecaps (talk) 06:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Semi public tracker" is not an accurate description 

message: Ok, do we really need to have a list of alternative trackers in the article?  If somebody can find their way to Wikipedia, he/she can easily find their way to Demonoid's website where he/she can find said list of trackers. 
Furthermore, I'm leaning toward removing everything after "The website went offline to all regions on September 14, 2009, and was still down on October 9th." based on the same reasoning as above.  In my opinion there's no need to repeat on Wiki what's clearly printed on Demonoid's website. Darry2385 (talk) 03:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of trackers 

message: * "500 internal server error" doesn't mean it was blocked. There could be a technical problem.
* Some customers in Germany seem to be able to access the site.
* A forum is not a reliable source.
As such, I'm removing the Germany block notice again, until someone can find a reliable source for it. Equazcion (talk) 15:15, 4 Feb 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There's always a need for a source, at least if you want to say the site is "blocked". You don't know it's blocked until a source says so. The forum originally referenced has some users from Germany saying it's accessible. If it weren't for that, I'd say we could add that the site is simply "not accessible from Germany", but that doesn't seem to be the case. To say "some German users are reporting that the site is inaccessible," when there's no source, is too much original research (WP:OR), in my opinion. Equazcion (talk) 18:22, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

text: Should be noted if there are reliable sources to confirm it. Rehevkor ✉ 14:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blocked in Germany 

message: July 27, 2010 (at least the time when I checked): Demonoid has switched from a shiny white page to a "Currently in maintenance mode" screen. Could be back on soon. No, I won't mess with the article yet. The info has been forwarded here, so that's sufficient for me. -andy 77.7.111.93 (talk) 08:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the section above, we don't mention downtimes or maintenance such as this unless it is otherwise notable. Rehevkor ✉ 12:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Seems to be normal now anyway. This is why changing the article is pointless. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

text: I've figured this out meanwhile, but I can only enter in WAP2 mode, actually made for mobile phones. Once I try to remove the ";wap2" suffix from the direct forum links, I get redirected to some "account.php" which leaves me behind a white page. But yes, the forum servers are up, though operating behind curtains. -andy 77.190.58.128 (talk) 03:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Currently: "Maintenance mode" 

message: 1.  As of January 16, 2011: The Pirate Bay is up, operational, and #1 in traffic according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_BitTorrent_sites
2.  Demonoid is surpassed in traffic by TPB, Torrentz, iosHunt, and 3 other sites, according to the same Wikipedia comparison article in point 1. 
71.145.158.147 (talk) 03:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article badly out of date 

message: Today I noticed that demonoid.me is now redirecting to demonoid.ph.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.134.75.75 (talk) 00:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: New domain extension?

message: This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (your reason here) --76.189.227.225 (talk) 02:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contested deletion 

message: http://torrentfreak.com/demonoid-busted-as-a-gift-to-the-united-states-government-120806/
according to this the site is busted in it's current hosting...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.230.82.57 (talk) 15:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: TorrentFreak is hardly a reliable source, and there is no other original source that confirms the accusation of a raid by the government. —99.99.216.248 (talk) 22:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

text: Here's your glimmer of optimism http://torrentfreak.com/demonoid-theres-still-hope-but-were-not-coming-back-soon-120914/ :) krisCrash 23:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The site is busted... no more Demonoid ? 

message: See: Torrentfreak. Freaky Fries (talk) 13:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demonoid trackers back online 

message: ... what's that? is that part of the demonoid file sharing or something else? 92.225.75.246 (talk) 02:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's quite possible people have pounced on 'demonoid' domain names and are setting up fake sites for one reason or other; be cautious and suspicious of anything like this that you run across. If Demonoid returns for real, you will hear about it. Until then, there's nothing to really report in the Wikipedia article. —mjb (talk) 23:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  demonoid.name 

message: Apparently demonoid.me was redirecting to demonoid.hk, and TorrentFreak readers are assuming this means that Demonoid is coming back to life at this new domain. In support of this, there is the apparent fact that the tracker, when it sort-of came back to life, was based in Hong Kong at an IP address in the same range. However...
* This Wikipedia article is not the Breaking News About Demonoid site. Try to consider what's actually important to report. We have a higher threshold here than TorrentFreak does. See WP:RECENT.
* The demonoid.me and demonoid.com registrations both switched on Jan. 7, 2013 to a privacy protection service based in Brasilia, Brazil.
* There isn't anything actually running at demonoid.hk except a web server which just returns a 403 Forbidden response. There's no tracker running.
* The demonoid.hk domain was registered 5 days after demonoid.me's Aug. 7, 2012 shutdown, but unlike the demonoid.com and demonoid.me domains, the demonoid.hk domain was registered to Sublime Technology Limited, a Hong Kong company based in an apartment building in Hong Kong. Sublime has registered over 1700 domains via Instra, a Melbourne based company run by Antonio Frank "Tony" Lentino. Do a Google search for Sublime's address—813 "610 Nathan Road" "Hong Kong"—and you will see that dozens of companies operate out of there. This doesn't seem like a legit home for Demonoid.
* All three domains seem to be related, in that when they resolve, they point to the same set of IP addresses in or near China. The demonoid.hk nameservers are also configured to return info for demonoid.me, if asked. Regardless, there has been no word from anyone connected to Demonoid since July 2012; we just don't know if any of these domains are under the control of the original admins. Nothing about these domains can be assumed to be "official".
Taking all this into consideration, I feel we should not be implying that demonoid.hk is in any way legit, or even worth mentioning, until we have info that's more definitive and useful. If we send people to a fake site or honeypot, that would be rather irresponsible, don't you think? —mjb (talk) 03:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 29th jan 2013 demonoid.hk is now up a a torrent tracker site. A shadow of it's former self, but it is there.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.181.126 (talk) 09:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think we should wait until it's confirmed to be Demonoid. Anyone can set up a tracker. —mjb (talk) 13:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, until we get notable references we cannot be sure that Demonoid.hk is the real deal.—Epicurus B. (Not my talk page) 15:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demonoid.hk 

message: See discussion of demonoid.hk, above. Or perhaps just read the TorrentFreak article about how it's apparently another fake site trying to capitalize on the Demonoid name. —mjb (talk) 09:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demonoid.mk 

message: Just got an email saying that demonoid was coming back. Not sure if legit. content posted here. The domain d2.net shows under construction.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.102.126 (talk) 04:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Already established to be fake, distributing malware, and suspended by their hosting service (US-based!). —mjb (talk) 07:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Update: The malware distribution was probably due to a banner ad, according to their hosting service, which has un-suspended the site. However, d2's admins have stated that the site is unofficial, not run or sanctioned by Demonoid personnel; it's just based on Demonoid's old user and torrent databases, and has no tracker or forums. We can talk about d2 in the article, but we need to make it clear that it's not Demonoid. I've gone ahead and made some edits to this effect. —mjb (talk) 21:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible comeback 

message: A few reverts on a lead sentence declaring Demonoid to be the second most popular torrent [site/tracker] in 2007. The reference very clearly says tracker, not site as the sentence originally said, but I had since changed. The IP, who seems to be taking a strangely combative approach, has removed it twice -- first including a link to top torrent sites in the edit summary and next time with a summary of "maybe before undoing changes you could actually read the newly referenced material. Between this link and the last one demonoid clearly wasn't the second most popular anything," apparently not "actually reading" the reference which he/she removed, which the new link does not contradict. (Tracker is not the same as site and even if it were, the fact that you have a reference that says otherwise doesn't mean you get to simply remove the other one, especially when the other one is a reliable source. But again, they don't contradict each other because they're two separate statistics). I reverted again not because I'm pushing a particular direction but because you replaced a referenced statement with a reference that is now completely irrelevant to the sentence it appears at the end of. --Rhododendrites (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Rhododentrites listed the situation much more concisely. The IP editor has reverted three times - anymore is edit warring and in violation of the 3 Revert Rule. and accurately than I would have.Caidh (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

text: Note: The IP editor keeps reverting.  If he would read the source he is using which 'contradicts', he would note that the article is about "Torrent Sites" - most of which given are search/index sites - not trackers.  The current reference is about "Torrent Trackers".  The text in the article is correct and perfectly matches the reference.  Additionally, the source the IP editor is attempting to use, http://www.benh.org/techblog/2007/12/top-5-popular-torrent-sites-of-2007/, is a blog site (personal site of one individual) and does not qualify as a WP:RS anyway. Caidh (talk) 23:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most popular torrent site/tracker 

message: TorrentFreak's latest report has an optimistic headline ("Demonoid Will Come Back Soon, Rebuild in Progress").
The report actually doesn't confirm that claim at all, though. Here's what it says:
* The demonoid.com and demonoid.me domains are now under the control of the same person (or group).
* Both domains point to the same website, which is up and currently shows the Demonoid logo, "We will rebuild! Coming back soon, please check back later. Thanks for your visit!", and a Bitcoin donation link.
* TorrentFreak (Ernesto, I assume) corresponded with someone answering email at the .com domain.
* This mystery person said "I can’t give you any specifics at the moment, but yeah, we are planning to bring the site back".
* This mystery person did not respond to a follow-up request for more details and for whether any of the old site's administrators were involved.
If that's not fishy enough, I see that the website is using an SSL certificate with the wrong domain name, americanstoner.net, which does not bode well. The domain registration details are private, but if you take a look at the blog on the website of that domain, you'll see that we're probably not dealing with anyone connected to the original Demonoid.
So I don't think we can say that Demonoid's status is still anything other than "Offline". As far as I can tell, this is just some guy who pounced on the domains, loves weed, and wants people to send him Bitcoins. —mjb (talk) 04:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  November 2013 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Demonoid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080414204424/http://www.subdemon.com:80/forum/index.php?topic=17566.0 to http://www.subdemon.com/forum/index.php?topic=17566.0
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: demonoid.pw redirected me to demonoid.cc just now.  Does anyone know the details?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CD0E:D410:24A6:61B8:C079:B836 (talk) 11:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  demonoid.cc ? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Demonoid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vnunet.it/articles/printView/it/vnunet/news/2007/09/28/oscurato-torrent-demonoid
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071022030745/http://www.theinquirer.net:80/gb/inquirer/news/2007/10/01/demoniod-p2p-site-returns-dead to http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/10/01/demoniod-p2p-site-returns-dead
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Demonoid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/66OwThtfB?url=http://www.demonoid.me/account_handler.php to http://fora.demonoid.com/index.php?topic=933162.0
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/10/01/demoniod-p2p-site-returns-dead
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified