Do people label something as "socialist" using one definition and then condemn "socialism" using another?

I certainly get that impression around here.

There are several different definitions of socialism and an idea can be socialist under one definition and something else under another definition. I strongly favor one definition and use it everywhere, but if people switch between two definitions in the middle of an argument, they fall into the fallacy of equivocation.

Some economic definitions:

1. Workers' control of the means of production. This is my preferred definition. Note that self-employment meets this definition but not necessarily the following definitions.

2. Cooperative or community control of the means of production. This includes participatory economics.

3. Free access to the means of production. This includes various forms of stateless communism.

4. Partial or complete state control of the economy, with or without central planning. This includes everything from modern mixed-economy capitalism, to the Five-Year Plans, to the state bailing out Wall Street. Now I'm an anarchist, and I'm rather hostile to this idea, and I think most anarchists still consider ourselves socialists.

One historical definition:

5. A transitional phase in Marxist theory between capitalism and communism. I think most Marxists envision state regulation during the transition (definition 4 above), then the withering away of the state, and stateless communism after that (definition 3 above).

Some political definitions:

6. The viewpoints of the various socialist movements. The 1st International included everyone from individualist anarchists to social anarchists to state-socialists; the 2nd and following internationals mostly excluded the various libertarian socialists.

7. The policies of the 2nd Socialist International (Social-Democracy).

8. The policies of the 3rd & following Communist Internationals (Marxism-Leninism).

How do you think people can avoid this confusion between different definitions?