This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.
If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
In my years of association with Steve, I've never heard him referred to as "Stephen". He's "Steve", except on the same kind of occasion where Bill Clinton used "William". So according to WP:NCNT's statement, "Most general rule overall: use the most common form of the name used in English", I've moved him back to "Steve Crocker". --Alvestrand (talk) 02:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
In his latest article in the New York Times of 6 Apr 2009 he himself is attributing the article to "Stephen D. Crocker". In early RFC mailing addresses he used the same, although just Steve Crocker is also used in text. An article title is a formal citation and should use formal names, text may use other forms. Kbrose (talk) 03:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I suspect he's taking the New York Times very seriously.... the googlehits are 10:1 in favour of "Steve Crocker". RFC 1, his most famous work, has "Steve Crocker" as the author. Bill Clinton's article is listed by his informal name. I think we should follow the guideline that seems to be a Wikipedia consensus. --Alvestrand (talk) 04:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, I checked with Steve, and he likes having the article named "Steve Crocker". --Alvestrand (talk) 05:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)