Apparently, the naming conflict, and trying to take advantage of the similarity of a well known organization is interpreted as such by others. Just to show that this is not a Bitcointalk gang against the alleged NGO: see
https://wikivisually.com/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/October_2015#HUMANRIGHTS.FOUNDATIONIt’s pretty lengthy, so here are some extracts (see above link for full context). The first one is from the alleged NGO; the remaining from Wikipedia:
<…> I'am sorry for changed the link on Human_Rights_Foundation Wikipedia article and showed my webpage at the external link section <…>
The account who has been plastering (spamming) this site all over Wikipedia, generally completely ignoring our inclusion standards (external links guideline), and likely editing with a conflict of interest (conflict of interest guideline) is currently blocked because in between spamming this site felt the need to post edits in mainspace which appear to be death threats. Until one can show on which pages which link does follow our inclusions standards (i.e., whitelist requests), this is Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T 09:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
According to your link you filed an application for registering HUMANRIGHTSFOUNDATION as a trademark a week ago, while the The Human Rights Foundation was incorporated under US laws ten years ago. And they're well known, with lots of media coverage, but you're not, making it more probable that you're trying to impersonate them, and not the other way around... Thomas.W talk 12:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
We often do not include the articles in the names, but that could have been a reason for discussion (a 'conflict' between article names is nothing new, and articles can be moved when discussion results in such a consensus). Anyway, it becomes more and more clear that you are two different organisations; that would hence mean we could have two independent articles on the two organisations (assuming both are notable). You are more than free to submit a draft about your organisation, and then the naming conflict can be resolved then (as well as either selective whitelisting of the mainpage for use on the article).
It does however not excuse the a) hijacking of the existing article, b) the addition of the organisation's link to this page and others, c) removal of mentions of the other organisation, and d) the apparent death threats on the subject of the founder of the other site. --Dirk Beetstra T 13:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
The impression I get is that it's someone who is trying to hijack a well known name in order to get a share of the donations... Thomas.W talk