I wouldn’t call that “seething”, the project is targeting an English speaking audience (English is the source, other languages are translation targets), effectively no one is a native speaker of Esperanto, and it’s usage is small enough that someone could quite possibly never encounter the language.
Bad project names are common enough in programming and open source, and complained about, that I wouldn’t jump right to xenophobia as the reason someone might complain that a project picked a name knowing it would be difficult to pronounce.
They can name it whatever they want, but getting that angry that someone didn’t recognize a word in an anglisiced spelling of a word from a niche language is uncalled for.
Because disabling JS is unheard of in the open source world, right?
They implemented a feature that breaks the website for people who otherwise have no issues while providing no functional value to the site “rather than spending time building their actual product that people want to use.”
It’s one thing to expect them to do special work to support an uncommon configuration, and it’s another to feel frustrated that they did extra work to break a less common but still unremarkable configuration.
I entirely support people not wanting bots to scrape their shit, but there’s a handful of websites I use that use this specific blocking software and it frequently gets angry and blocks me if I’m on my phone for no good reason. It’s annoying, and getting angry at the user for being upset that your website is broken is about the only thing more unreasonable than demanding that an open source developer do work for you for free.