No, see, you're lawyering now. Not even that, you're twisting words.
We all know what "withdrawal problems" mean in the context of Bitcoin exchanges: the inability to serve withdrawal requests of customers.
And that's exactly what is not going on over at Bitstamp. What is going on is that, at some point during the past year, (a) they decided they want to establish a more intrusive KYC procedure for large withdrawals, and (b) that they don't want to make a big public announcement about it.
I support their right to do (a), but would have preferred if they would have avoided doing it rather backhandedly, i.e. I don't support (b). But by now everyone who follows the Bitstamp thread knows about it, so it's, if you want to call it, an open secret: if you want to deal in large(ish) sums on Bitstamp, prepare for the additional KYC questionnaire.
Sorry but I'm not twisting words, you can't change the definition of a problem. We obviously disagree so its pointless debating semantics. I think its clear that a withdrawal problem is anything that makes withdrawing either currency problematic, which this does.
I too, support their right to do (a) but think that when you do (a) without (b) be prepared for a backlash from customers who either;
1) Are just generally pretty pissed of with (b)
2) Physically cannot sign their most used address.
3) Wouldn't be prepared to offer that information (which is a personal choice) but didn't have the chance to not use the exchange due to (b) and now their fiat is effectively hostage.
4) Think that a lot of the questions in (a) are far too intrusive. Which I think they are no other financial institution in the same category asks those sorts of questions. Even my bank doesn't know some of the information they are asking for.
If its the law to be this intrusive (which its not) then cite it in the request and I will follow it. Until then they are just another exchange that is all too happy to hold your assets hostage.
) 
since there is no reports yet I think this is not true.