Frank v Waveren said:
I don't see how that could be read as anything but "make one revert. Allowed. Make another revert. Allowed. Make another revert. Allow. Make another revert. Not allowed."
I think this is the kind of thing that does show up when you get around to battle testing a rule that has hitherto only been a guideline for personal interpretation. It surprised me too that the difference exists, but since I very quickly encountered at least two people who had a different interpretation I think that's a good illustration that there is no settled interpretation yet. I've already stated that I regard the 3RR as unsatisfactory, underpowered because it tolerates a very high level of pointless edit warring. With the alternate interpretation, in my opinion, it's worse than useless, at the very best just a drain on sysop time. It would magnify the power of determined edit warriors by giving them carte blanche to perform up to three daily individual reverts on separate sections on the same article. If the alternate interpretation gains wide currency among edit warriors (and it's only a matter of time), the effects will be to intensify the problem that 3RR was intended to ease.