The Wikipedia article is only a summary, not a translation.
The Fourth root downfall has previously been translated as: "Saying that the Mahayana sutras are not a teaching of the Buddha constitutes a root downfall". Rulu's translation is too mild and a watered down version of it. Your Yogachara bhumi sastra comes probably from the same bureau?
I looked at the Sanskrit manuscript as well as the English translation (from Sanskrit & Tibetan) by Mark Tatz. Here's Tatz' translation of the fourth pārājayikasthānīyadharma:
To repudiate the bodhisattva collection and, on his own or echoing someone else, to devote himself to counterfeits of the good doctrine, and then to enjoy, to show, and to establish those counterfeits of the good doctrine, is the fourth event that is "grounds for defeat" for the bodhisattva.
And here's Rulu's translation:
If a Bodhisattva maligns Bodhisattva teachings, or pronounces supposedly similar dharmas and pretentiously establishes himself on such dharmas, which come from his own or someone else’s understanding, it is called the fourth parājika.
While Tatz' translation is more precise, I think that the differences between the two is merely due to Rulu relying exclusively on the Chinese text and not because of any intentional attempt to misrepresent the content of the fourth pārājayikasthānīyadharma.