user8157: After enlightenment, the Buddha spoke: 

This Dhamma that I have attained is deep, hard to see, hard to
  realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle,
  to-be-experienced by the wise. But this generation delights in
  attachment, is excited by attachment, enjoys attachment. For a
  generation delighting in attachment, excited by attachment, enjoying
  attachment, this/that conditionality and dependent co-arising are hard
  to see. This state, too, is hard to see: the resolution of all
  fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of
  craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding. And if I were to teach the
  Dhamma and if others would not understand me, that would be tiresome
  for me, troublesome for me.
Enough now with teaching  what    only with difficulty    I reached. This
  Dhamma is not easily realized by those overcome with aversion &
  passion.
What is abstruse, subtle,     deep,   hard to see, going against the flow
  — those delighting in passion, cloaked in the mass of darkness,   won't
  see.

Was the Buddha judging people unfairly here because his mind was defiled (polluted) with self-conceit; narcistically believing he was better or superior than others? Was the Buddha polluted by the fetter of conceit (mana)? 

user-1: This question is strange especially if it's from those who have studied Buddhism and are inside this doctrine.  Unshakable confidence in Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha is required to make progress in this doctrine.  No matter how one slices it, faith is required in Buddhism to make that first step.  Example, before I start practice how do I know Nirvana exist?  If faith is not required, then someone should be able to demonstrate to me that is does.  If you are not Buddhist and make a critical inquiries about Buddha's characteristic, then best answer would probably come from a scholar who isn't a Buddhist.  I doubt that a Buddhist would give an answer that border line disrespectful to the "triple gems". 
My answer is "no".  Buddha is perfect in every way.    

user254: This answer says there are 9 types of conceit (including e.g. "thinking one is superior when one is not"), of which only 3 types are true (including e.g. "thinking one is superior when one is").
It says that a sotapanna is only capable of "true conceit".
To say "judge people unfairly with self-conceit" would therefore imply that the Buddha is more deluded than a sotapanna.

This doctrine (about "true conceit") can also be found in this paper, “Me”: The nature of conceit, by Piya Tan (on page 50):

Here, the Vibhaṅga Commentary goes on to state that only the following three are types of true
  conceit (yāthāva,māna), that is, founded pride, namely:

the superiority complex of the superior;
the equality complex of the equal; and
the inferiority complex of the inferior.

The rest are types of false conceit [unfounded pride].
While false conceit is abandoned by the path of stream-winning, true conceit is abandoned only by
  the path of arhathood. (VbhA 486 f)

It's based on the Vibhaṅga Commentary.

8157: <p>After enlightenment, the Buddha spoke: </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>This Dhamma that I have attained is deep, hard to see, hard to
  realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle,
  to-be-experienced by the wise. But this generation delights in
  attachment, is excited by attachment, enjoys attachment. For a
  generation delighting in attachment, excited by attachment, enjoying
  attachment, this/that conditionality and dependent co-arising are hard
  to see. This state, too, is hard to see: the resolution of all
  fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of
  craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding. And if I were to teach the
  Dhamma and if others would not understand me, that would be tiresome
  for me, troublesome for me.</p>
  
  <p>Enough now with teaching  what    only with difficulty    I reached. This
  Dhamma is not easily realized by those overcome with aversion &amp;
  passion.</p>
  
  <p>What is abstruse, subtle,     deep,   hard to see, going against the flow
  — those delighting in passion, cloaked in the mass of darkness,   won't
  see.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Was the Buddha judging people unfairly here because his mind was defiled (polluted) with self-conceit; narcistically believing he was better or superior than others? Was the Buddha polluted by the fetter of conceit (mana)? </p>
 -1: <p>This question is strange especially if it's from those who have studied Buddhism and are inside this doctrine.  Unshakable confidence in Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha is required to make progress in this doctrine.  No matter how one slices it, faith is required in Buddhism to make that first step.  Example, before I start practice how do I know Nirvana exist?  If faith is not required, then someone should be able to demonstrate to me that is does.  If you are not Buddhist and make a critical inquiries about Buddha's characteristic, then best answer would probably come from a scholar who isn't a Buddhist.  I doubt that a Buddhist would give an answer that border line disrespectful to the "triple gems". </p>

<p>My answer is "no".  Buddha is perfect in every way.    </p>
 254: <p><a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/9424/254">This answer</a> says there are 9 types of conceit (including e.g. "thinking one is superior when one is not"), of which only 3 types are true (including e.g. "thinking one is superior when one is").</p>

<p>It says that a sotapanna is only capable of "true conceit".</p>

<p>To say "judge people unfairly with self-conceit" would therefore imply that the Buddha is more deluded than a sotapanna.</p>

<hr>

<p>This doctrine (about "true conceit") can also be found in this paper, <a href="http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/19.2a-Me-the-nature-of-conceit.-piya.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">“Me”: The nature of conceit</a>, by Piya Tan (on page 50):</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Here, the Vibhaṅga Commentary goes on to state that only the following three are types of true
  conceit (yāthāva,māna), that is, founded pride, namely:</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li>the superiority complex of the superior;</li>
  <li>the equality complex of the equal; and</li>
  <li>the inferiority complex of the inferior.</li>
  </ul>
  
  <p>The rest are types of false conceit [unfounded pride].</p>
  
  <p>While false conceit is abandoned by the path of stream-winning, true conceit is abandoned only by
  the path of arhathood. (VbhA 486 f)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It's based on the Vibhaṅga Commentary.</p>
