OK, then it seems that – at least in the case of obvious misuse (whether as a “joke” or maliciously) rather than more general questions of consent to having one’s photo posted – part of the problem is not a lack of mechanisms for dealing with it, but a failure of enforcement.
How do we increase awareness among curators that they should be hiding such content rather than resolving flags? (I assume that not all curators read the forum, and also that they may not necessarily see updates to the curator guidelines.)
Edit: In the case above “Apes and Old World Monkeys” is not technically an “intentionally inaccurate ID” in the sense of iNat’s taxonomy, since the parvorder includes humans. However, this does not mean it was not intended as a mis-ID – the intent is clearly to call the person in the photo an ape or monkey, because otherwise they would have chosen Homo sapiens. Users unfamiliar with taxonomy who are relying on the common names may not even be aware that humans are within this taxon. So a certain amount of sensitivity to the spirit of the guidelines rather than the letter seems to be called for.
Regarding the potentially offensive use of the genus “Homo” without the “sapiens” part, I agree that this is tricky. One thing that might perhaps help would for the CV to be programmed to always suggest the species in this particular case instead of its usual more conservative genus-level top suggestion. Then at least there might be less ambiguity about whether such IDs are intentional or the accidental result of testing how iNat works.