I'm not making any guesses what actually happened.
Just stating that you misrepresented what the article actually said when you wrote "the attack is called credential stuffing". Your sentence gives impression that the article would have said it, but the article made a point for the opposite.
The Amazon spokesperson directly said it was credential stuffing--the article was trying to argue that it was more than that in an extremely misleading way.
You may be totally right and it was credential stuffing and the article may have been wrong, misleading, incompetent and stupid.
Nonetheless, you misrepresented what the article actually said -- the article raised both, the possibility credential stuffing (implied by Amazon spokesperson), and doubt about it (unspecified security expert, WiFi attacks).
Yes they are different, and you did both: called it out for being misleading, and simultaneously misrepresented what it actually said (I've already detailed the reasons above, and others have quoted them verbatim to you).
The best before date of this conversation has clearly expired, so let's just stop here.
Just stating that you misrepresented what the article actually said when you wrote "the attack is called credential stuffing". Your sentence gives impression that the article would have said it, but the article made a point for the opposite.