Well, that was the difference I was referring to. (I wasn't really thinking of content found libellous in court, child pornography etc.)
What is new is that the WMF is expressing an interest in the actual integrity of the encyclopedic content, hiring staff to address "misleading content", "disinformation", etc., rather than restricting itself to deletions required by law.
The WMF's recent action concerning the Croatian Wikipedia surely is an example of this shift. The WMF had the means – but not the will – to do what it has done now, ten years ago.
In a similar way, I understand that content added by ISIS sympathisers is a problem in the Arabic and Farsi Wikipedia versions that the WMF is now trying to address.
Andreas