Let us consider the following two phrases:
(1) Он сражался, как самурай. (He fought like a samurai.)
(2) Он сражался, не как самурай. (He fought unlike a samurai.)
I am confused as to whether I should put the comma in these sentences.
On the one hand, what I remember from my classes is that I should, although I am unsure whether my understanding is right; I also just found the relevant grammar rule in the Internet, and the rule together with the accompanying examples appears to say that the comma is needed:
Запятая перед словом «как» ставится в случае, .... eсли речь идет о сравнении.
(3) Ее кожа была бела, как алебастр.
(4) Она была прекрасна, как роза.
(5) Он был богат, как Крез.
(Source)
(The numbers 3-5 are added by me as I will refer to these examples later in this post.)
On the other hand, I see in Google that the comma in such sentences is usually or at least very often omitted even in newspapers such as Московский Комсомолец. Below are five random examples from that newspaper:
(6) И сказать себе: “Господи, а я бы на его месте поступил как последняя сволочь”. (Source)
(7) Более того - он поступил как настоящий мужчина и не отказался от своего слова, хотя на него оказывалось колоссальное давление. (Source)
(8) Он поступил как настоящий герой. (Source)
(9) Ну не по-мужски это просто, он поступил как бабушка на скамеечке. Если бы я была мужиком, то дала бы ему в морду! (Source)
(10) Я его уважаю как футболиста, по-человечески тоже нормально относился. Но он поступил как предатель. (Source)
But I also found analogous sentences but with a comma in the very same newspaper! Below are three random examples:
(11) Грипп поступил, как свинья. (Source)
(12) Я поступил, как современный непрофессиональный журналист: не проверил полученные сведения. (Source)
(13) Да, я поступил, как любой нормальный человек, осознавший угрозу для жизни своих близких. (Source)
My impression is that the comma is more often omitted than not, and I also see in Google that the following phrase is almost always written without a comma:
(14) Он поступил как мудак. (He acted like an a##hole.)
In English, I put a comma in phrases like "he acted like an a##hole" if what I want to say is that he acted and that, as an additional remark, the mere fact that he acted makes him comparable to an a##hole. If I want to say that what makes him an a##hole is HOW he acted, not just that he acted, then I do not put a comma.
But this logic does not explain all Russian examples provided above, although I noticed that Sentences (3)-(5) can be terminated before the comma, which might explain its presence. But Sentences (11)-(13) cannot be terminated before the comma, yet the comma is there. I am so much confused.
Anyway, Russian is not English, so the English rules are a wrong lighthouse in the sea mist of subtleties of the Russian language. Only native Russian speakers can help me navigate in that mist. I am humbly asking for your help.
My question is this: What is the principle for making punctuation choices in sentences like Examples (1)-(14)? I would also be very grateful for direct yes or no answers of yours whether you would put a comma in Examples (1)-(14).
As the usage of the comma in such sentences in Московский Комсомолец seems highly inconsistent to me, I would also be thankful for an explanation why one and the same newspaper makes different punctuation choices in apparently analogous sentences.
UPDATE 1. @Quassnoi suggested that Московский Комсомолец is yellow press, but I just checked and found that even one of the most serious Russian newspapers, Коммерсант, makes inconsistent punctuation choices in "поступил как." Have a look.
UPDATE 2. @БаянКупи-ка provided a link to the relevant grammar rule on gramota.ru, but the rule seems highly confusing and illogical. For instance, it gives the following two apparently contradicting examples:
Ее голос звенел, как самый маленький колокольчик.
Tропинка извивалась как змея.
The provided explanation why the comma is needed in the first sentence and not needed in the second one seems very vague and illogical and is beyond my understanding, and I am unsure whether that grammar source is the ultimate truth.