This made for interesting reading @thatgermandude. :c)

I personally do not consider mafia to be truly representative of anarchism. The reason is that mafia disregards one form of governance and produces a semblance of governmence in its own right. Its 'organized' and there is a taxation being levied (sometimes called a protection fee).

Heroes and vigilantes, I am not really of the opinion represent the 'status' of anarchy either. They may hold a healthy or unhealthy disregard of some or all governing structures (whether its their desire for good over-riding their desire for lawfulness, or their desire for lawfulness in a perceived unlawful circumstance leading to acts of 'correction' on their part), neither do they indirectly influence society's way of going about things. They may be anarchical elements but they are not anarchy.

I have often heard volunteerism being noted as core to anarchy...

Such is as valid, in my opinion, as noting that a dictatorship is great for as long as the one in leadership is great (and benign).

Elements of leadership shall always be necessary in order to move a society forward - including within a state of anarchy. The question as to what degree of leadership - and structure - is desirable is debateable - but I would suggest that the 'community-level' is as good a level as any.