" 

 == disclosure of undetected paid content == 

 In regards to your statement at the paid-editing RFC, I am wondering whether you are willing to disclose your paid content to someone who can then speak about the appropriateness of your edits to those articles.  A rather simplistic deduction is that you don't disclose your paid content because the community may not agree with your assessment regarding appropriateness, but of course there are business contracts/confidentiality and often inexplicable Wikipedian behaviour to take into account, so I don't blame you for keeping a tight lip about them. 

 To be honest, I am not confident that you have supplied a complete list of socks, as I suspect that some of the paid content was done by socks or meat-puppets which you have not disclosed, for the same reasons you don't want to openly mention the undetected paid content. 

 To maintain confidentiality, the reviewer would need to be bound to not edit any of the articles, and recuse from anything to do with the undisclosed socks.  It would probably be better to select someone who is predominately a content editor, such as a FA reviewer, so that the community trusts their word on the appropriateness of your paid content. 

 Also, could you or others provide a list of any detected or disclosed paid content?  This would give the peanut gallery some examples to inspect, so that we can make inferences about the undisclosed paid content. 
  '''''' "