This sounds like a good idea in theory, and I sympathize with the motivation, but I don't think it's actually something we should put into practice.
Why? Because we strongly encourage new users to edit their questions in order to improve them and bring them into compliance with our guidelines. This is especially true after their questions have been closed, but still true all the rest of the time as well. Experienced users will frequently make suggestions in the comments on how to improve a question, and conscientious newbies will follow those suggestions. Therefore, it seems like a really bad idea to complicate those users' ability to do this. In fact, if you ask me, not enough people do it already, so we certainly don't want to make it even more difficult for those rare users who do actually desire to improve.
This is a change that would actually backfire: you aim to improve the quality of questions from new users, but you'd do so in a way that would actually work to discourage new users from improving the quality of their questions.
There's no need to complicate the user interface or process. The existing system works perfectly well. Edits bump the questions up to the top of the questions page, and experienced users who monitor the question page will notice those edits. They can then roll back the edits themselves (or flag for moderator attention), and if desired, leave a comment explaining why they rolled back the edits to the user. You know, exactly what you did here. That worked just fine.
If, for whatever reason, the user rolls back your edits (or tries again), you should flag the question for moderator attention and ask them to lock it. Again, problem solved, and you only step on the toes of those users who have demonstrated an unwillingness to follow our guidelines, not those who are actually proactively trying to improve, just as we ask them to do.