What would you call it? When you hide something that you know will bother someone else precisely because you know it will bother them. In what way is that not dishonest?
Keeping resolution behind the screen is not a matter of concealing something from someone who would be bothered by it, but keeping something from someone who is entertained by the mystery. It's exactly like a magician setting the stage for his act so that the audience can't see how he does his tricks. The point is the enjoyment of the audience, and it's in now way dishonest.
Bingo. Here's the answer right here. Telling the DM your play preferences is now being a PITA and pulling OneTrueWayism. Now, I'm not even allowed to express a preference at the table? It's perfectly acceptable to tell me that I'm wrong while cramming your play style down my throat?
Not remotely, no. I'm in no way trying to force anyone to use a given technique. I'm perfectly OK with a player being honest about what he wants/needs from a game, and it's only a problem if that player is intent on forcing that preference upon the whole table.
How the DM runs his game is certainly something that's up for discussion, but it's not something that a single player can expect to dictate on behalf of all the players involved. That's where your example player crosses the line. Not in expressing what he wants, but in insisting it apply to others who may not have the same issues with a well-known, common and effective DMing technique.
1. Transparency. Obviously DM fudging is meant to be kept secret. But, player fudging is in the open.
You're not really talking player vs DM but system vs free-form. A DM offering a player a FATE point to compel an Aspect is using a formal system, it's a very flexible system, but it's codified. The player can later use that FATE point to change a roll. The DM can also change rolls in a formal way, like that. All very above-board and spelled out in the system. It might even be fair to call it a more advanced or 'more evolved' system for that reason.
5e relies a great deal more on the DM's judgment, rather than a formal system.
2. Objectivity. Typically DM fudging is based on the DM's gut feeling.
Most resolution in 5e is. The DM decides success, failure, or call for a roll and sets the DC for any declared action. The DM is free to make rulings notwithstanding the rules. That's 5e's DM Empowerment, and it is 'powerful' in the system, sense, as well.
3. Game play. DM fudging has no part in the mechanics.
That's really the only distinction you're drawing, it's not player vs DM, it's formal mechanic vs DM latitude ('Empowerment').
It sounds like you have an easier time trusting a written rule than a live DM. (That's not a dig, it's understandable, and a legitimate preference. It's just not the only one, and your preference doesn't make DMs running systems that don't cater to that preference 'dishonest.')
To me, I'd much rather see D&D adopt a broader use of the Inspiration mechanic and allow that to spackle over runs of bad luck and the sort.
That'd be cool, and, perhaps ironically, 5e DMs are free to make that sort of modification to their games in a way 3.5 DMs probably weren't, and 4e DMs would at least have been reluctant too.