Well if it is your belief that people are nicer at higher ratings, then the solution would be to get better so that once you get up to the nicer ratings you can stay there.
Are higher level players nicer though? Probably not, there is likely the same split of nice and not nice people. There are probably fewer fair play violaters because they care enough about playing to get to a high rank and probably are less likely to want the punishments standing in their way of getting games.
I don't think ratings matter, I read that Nimzovich once lost a game and screamed "Why must I lose to this idiot!"
Lower ranked players are often in a fragile emotional state from losing so much, but there are plenty of egomaniac, condescending people at the higher levels.
I always make a point to say "hello" at the start of every game (I play longer games not blitz) and at the end say "gg" if I lose and if they lose (or get in a hopeless position) I say "gg, you played well" or "gg valiant effort". I find this cuts down on the bad sportsmanship a lot. I've not had a person use profanity or let the time run down since I started doing it, sometimes they ignore the hello but that's about it. I did get one guy who was rated higher than me who beat me, who ignored the hello in the second game I played with him, and also seemed to play disrespectfully like bringing his queen out early because he didn't think I could make him pay for it, but he was Russian so maybe it was hard for him to understand the hello.
I play almost exclusively online 3 day or more chess. I've honestly never had one bit of bs from anyone whom I've beaten or lost to. Sometimes I will start off by saying "thanks for the game" and I may or may not tell them my name and where I'm from. The worst I ever get to that is no reply. A lot of the people I play don't speak English, and I don't take offense if they don't reply. Most of the time, I get a similar, nice response. Live is a bit different. Anger flares up there time to time. You should try the online, it's quite nice.
I agree totally with tfulk. "Online" players are so much nicer. Some of them don't say a lot, but nor do I if my game load is bulky. If someone does talk, (and it's very unlikely that it would be any sort of insult) I will always reply.
I seriously doubt that there are many people in the world that don't have a clue what the word "Hello" means.
It is the most common greeting in one of the world's dominant languages.
Maybe he was just antisocial then, I saw that people were "following" him (this is lichess's social network aspect) and he had not followed any one of them back. I also got the impression he was cheating as there were some red flags but I couldn't prove anything. This is one of the bad things about playing longer live games, people have time to run a chess engine and cheat, and if the person mostly plays blitz and then just decides "hey a long game, I have time to cheat here" it's pretty hard to prove it because they aren't cheating regularly.
I also played a guy in a long game who refused to draw when it was an endgame with his rook and king vs my king and bishop. He declined my draw offers so we played like that for 20 minutes until I just decided to be the bigger person and resign.
I've played a few games since I started this. These times I said "hello" as was suggested and it worked! Thanks.
I seriously doubt that there are many people in the world that don't have a clue what the word "Hello" means.
It is the most common greeting in one of the world's dominant languages.
Maybe he was just antisocial then, I saw that people were "following" him (this is lichess's social network aspect) and he had not followed any one of them back. I also got the impression he was cheating as there were some red flags but I couldn't prove anything. This is one of the bad things about playing longer live games, people have time to run a chess engine and cheat, and if the person mostly plays blitz and then just decides "hey a long game, I have time to cheat here" it's pretty hard to prove it because they aren't cheating regularly.
I also played a guy in a long game who refused to draw when it was an endgame with his rook and king vs my king and bishop. He declined my draw offers so we played like that for 20 minutes until I just decided to be the bigger person and resign.
Why did you not invoke the fifty-move rule instead?
There is no 50 move rule on lichess.
Live-chess (abuse, gamesmansip, offensive/insulting comments) is a train-wreck at the moment. Believe the site are trying to tidy this up but could take a while.
I seriously doubt that there are many people in the world that don't have a clue what the word "Hello" means.
It is the most common greeting in one of the world's dominant languages.
Maybe he was just antisocial then, I saw that people were "following" him (this is lichess's social network aspect) and he had not followed any one of them back. I also got the impression he was cheating as there were some red flags but I couldn't prove anything. This is one of the bad things about playing longer live games, people have time to run a chess engine and cheat, and if the person mostly plays blitz and then just decides "hey a long game, I have time to cheat here" it's pretty hard to prove it because they aren't cheating regularly.
I also played a guy in a long game who refused to draw when it was an endgame with his rook and king vs my king and bishop. He declined my draw offers so we played like that for 20 minutes until I just decided to be the bigger person and resign.
You do know engines are good enough to beat non grandmasters in blitz with ease. People have even made youtube videos in the past showing how easy it is to plug an engine like houdini into blitz.
Essentially if you avoid longer times because you assume that is where the cheaters are, that is a silly reason as a cheater can be anywhere. Best to play and just not worry about it as online ratings don't matter much in the grand scheme of things.
Are higher level players nicer though?
I can affirm from experience that the 5|0 blitz players that were rated 1400~1500 three years ago are much more likely to behave like jerks than the players rated 1700~1800 today. I would say 60% instead of 10% of time stallers.
Maybe the site just went better over the years, but I suspect the main effect is due to the rating.
(EDIT : well, not due to the rating obviously, but correlated with the ratings, ie the <1400 are more likely to be internet trolls / unsecure teenagers / etc. all kind of population more likely to act as jerks)
Since your rant wasn't short, should we assume you are vertically challenged, or are the kids just too fast for you in blitz?
Try putting a 5 (or even 10) second bonus into your games. Then you'll have time to roll those kids in the endgame, using you superior chess knowledge, of course. 
NIce cat, by the way. I used to have a blue point Siamese (apple head). Her name was Chloe'. She was a sweetheart.
P.S. average USCF ratings have dropped about 200 points over the past couple decades, largely because of the influx of scholastic chess (kids) who started outside the system, and with ratings between 100 and 1000. Near trick. Go figure.
As a matter of fact I am vertically challenged. Been in a wheelchair for about 5 years now. (Disability brought me back to chess after about 30 years so you are right on that account too.)
It isn't the games I lose to the kids that bother me so much. It is the games I win and then get stuck waiting out for no reason. It seems to happen most when I beat a sub 1400 player. It almost never happens with someone rated higher... then again I almost never beat someone higher.
I have had (roughly) the same experience playing blitz. Players under 1400 will (too often) simply walk away from their games.
That's why putting a 5 second bonus into whatever time control you play is a great equalizer against the blitz junkies.
Then, whenever you reach a winning endgame, instead of running out of time, you either roll your opponent, they resign, or they simply abandon the game. Sweet payback, in any case.
Don't expect "accountability" in Blitz, or on the internet more generally. You are just setting yourself up for heartache. Why bother?
Consider setting your "open seek" rating parameters at (roughly) plus or minus 150 points. Othewise, you will have to win 70-80 percent of your games to raise your ratings (since most of your opponents will be @200+ points below you).
Play at whatever speed you feel comfortable. Best Wishes.
I am in the unenviable position of being better than a raw beginner but not good enough to get away and stay away from the sore sports.
Most of my games end with the message, "Soandso may have violated our fair play policy... blah blah blah. Once I have a dozen of those or so then I gain enough rating points that I get to play better and much more enjoyable games with more serious players, but only for a while. They are better than me and after I lose a few times I go back to the swamp.
A couple things I wonder... Are better players that much more sportsmanlike or are they just as bad when they play people substantially better? It looks like I am stuck being a mediocre player Is there anything I can do to snap the viscious cycle of crowd of clowns--a few fun games--back to creeps?