Slight of hand. We were not discussing the credibility of an academic researcher, we were to discuss the contents and logical merit of their submission.

Both were ad-hominem. The first one also suffers from a pompous bias: What does it even matter if the submission is not peer-reviewed? It could have been posted on a blog! It is dropping little seeds of doubt, to weaken and attack something you don't want to attack directly:

"A warning to everyone that the linked website does not adhere to Wikipedia guidelines for being a credible source."

Expect better. If you demand peer-review, then review the contents as a peer! You have the opportunity to get what you want, instead of needlessly attacking a fellow scientist' credibility.