I am not a contentious type of person. Maybe I'm missing something. But here are two examples.
1) I asked this question, but it appeared to some users as too broad. Since this concept of "broadness" is quite obscure to me (it didn't look to me as overly broad), I offered three options for potential responders. @Philipp picked one of those options, the most basic, edited out a significant part of my question, and reopened it (it had been closed). I didn't like the edit and told so. @Philipp just flipped out and closed it again. I said nothing. I'm sure a lot of people would find my question interesting too.
2) Just recently, he (or she) dropped an A-bomb in the comment section to this question. He said comment sections are not a place for debates. To me, it sounds horribly similar to the infamous quote attributed to one of our crooks who said, "A parliament is not a place for discussions", or something to that effect (including the Russian parliament). But okay, I'm ready to accept it, maybe it's in your rules or something (which doesn't change the fact that it's, in my opinion, slightly odd). But earlier, on other SE sites, people would just move comments to the chat if such an issue arose, not just obliterate everything (example, see Alec's answer). I'm used to calling @Philipp's type of behavior "being a dick" (as a relatively neutral, matter-of-fact description, albeit slightly informal) so I told @Philipp just that.
Am I misunderstanding something or there's really something unusual, if not inappropriate, about the behavior of @Philipp? Is it par for the course here?