Basically, ancaps were pushed out from editing the main articles on anarchism and rewriting history, as there is no basis for their revisionism, so they piled onto the peripheral articles. Do a control+f for "anarcho-capitalism" in the main article on anarchism.

I can't see what you mean. Did you actually click the link, the very first sentence writes

can refer to the economic features of certain forms of libertarian socialism, individualist anarchism, or anarcho-capitalism..

The second sentence writes:

The term may be used to describe a number of different concepts, such as those proposed by anarchist market socialists like Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, individualist anarchists like Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner,[4] or alternately anarcho-capitalists like Murray Rothbard[5] and David D. Friedman.[1].

Do a control+f for "anarcho-capitalism" in the main article on anarchism. One mention is probably one too many

I get 10 mentions of the word in the article.

Since we seem to have radically different ideas about what the link contains, perhaps your knowledge of the article is outdated? Or am I viewing it during an anarchocapitalist "raid"?

Basically, ancaps were pushed out from editing the main articles on anarchism and rewriting history

Perhaps you assumed the link was to "anarchism" rather than "free market anarchism"? Since that is surely not the case with the one I linked.

Here[1] 's what libertarian means.

Why can't you comprehend that a word has more than one meaning? Many people, perhaps a majority in somewhere like the United States, use the word libertarian to mean pro-market views. Do you acknowledge that? If so how, how can "this is what libertarian means" be a correct statement if a significiant group of people use a different definition? The best you can get away with in that case is "this is what I think libertarianism should mean".

Here's what Murray Rothbard said about the word libertarian:

I do not know how much Rothbard was involved in changing the definition of the word, but what is your point? Because your argument seems to take the form of "people purposefully used a different definition of this word to change it's meaning, therefore only the original meaning is true". Is that your argument?

Are you aware that the word liberal, in the 19th century, referred to people who were pro free-market? That it was successfully changed to its current meaning by democratic socialists in the 1930s?

Would it be correct for me to go to modern liberals (ie. Obama voters and the like) and tell them "you are not a liberal" or "liberals actually believe less regulation and taxes". It obviously would not be appropiate for me to do so. Thats because the fact that one definition has a sketchy history behind it does not affect the fact that the definition exists. That is true for "liberal", "libertarian", and any other words with multiple common usages.

For example, you seem to be under the impression that anarcho-capitalism is anti-state. Which it isn't[2] . A state is defined as "a body of persons constituting a special class in a society" -- like a governing class.

That is how the socialist-anarchist defines state in your link, but its not how many capitalists define it. David Friedman uses the definition "an agency of legitimized coercion", and I believe the Rothbard definition is something like "a monopoly on the use of force".

If they actually used the definition you described, I don't think either of them would be anti-state, and I don't think they would call themselves anti-state either, since rich people could be called a "special class of people". So I have two things to point out. First, words have different definitions. Two, understanding the ideas of anarchocapitalists is best done by trying to read their arguments, rather then reading interpretations of their arguments by people who dislike capitalism.