Since I see some people here are doing crazy editing, I think it'd be nice if we could implement a way to mark those users we don't want editing our questions.
While I totally and 100% appreciate the overall sentiment of this idea, I think overall this is probably not a good idea. Even though I've been vocal about concerns on the edits that some users have been made, I can still safely say that are cases for great edits to my posts by the same users.
For example, just because I disagree with Rich and some of his edits does not mean I want to stop him from editing my posts when I have a typo, it is ambiguous, etc. Rich does do a great job at helping out in these situations and I would definitely want his help, especially when the change may prevent me from looking bad.
I would extend this by saying that I would definitely prefer that there was some form of agreement on what best practices are for some edits and overall posting guidelines. Quite a few of the so called edit wars could be corrected by an agreement. Simply disabling any user's ability to edit with the reputation on a per post basis seems to be rather negative.
If there is a specific post of yours you're having an issue with, you can flag it to bring it to a moderators attention. Beyond that though, I think the complexity this would add to the system would not be worth the payoff. The theory behind reputation is that it is a measure of the trust the system has in you; and therefore it unlocks certain features. If any user or users are abusing this power, then the moderators and/or SO team can take actions against this. Otherwise, if a user or users are trusted by the system, then they should be trusted. Once you post a question, it is not entirely your own. From the faq...
Other people can edit my stuff?!
Like Wikipedia, this site is collaboratively edited. If you are not comfortable with the idea of your questions and answers being edited by other trusted users, this may not be the site for you.
If you feel an edit was abusive, report it to the moderators. Otherwise:
If you are not comfortable with the idea of your posts being edited by other trusted users, this may not be the site for you.
If this were to be implemented, then some users would just simply mark everyone as not able to edit their posts. It would bring more harm to the site than good. And as much as I do disagree with Rich B on certain things, I do feel that him and his style (for lack of a better word), is probably the least harm out of all the possible worst case scenarios.
No system can be perfect, especially a system in which the public is allowed to define a portion of the ruleset. Our goal should be to make it the least bad thing out there.