This question about an employer keeping the documentation given to them by a successful candidate has been put on hold.
What the op is asking seems very clear to me , although his English is a bit broken : can he asks his employer to get his diploma and other documentation back during the time of his employment (vs getting it only at the end of the contract).
A simple grammar editing would have been sufficient.
What's the rationale for putting on hold and not simply edit it?
For me the rationale was that I had no clue if there was a question embedded in there or not.
The phrase "can i claim them to give them to me during my tenure?" was added after I voted.
Perhaps you can do some simple grammar editing, and we could vote to reopen the question?
Thing is, I saw it before it was closed, and had considered giving a hand to the wording, but to be honest I think the outcome would be off topic as company specific.
The answer is likely to be that the poster can ask, however it depends on the company (although I'd assume if this is common the answer would likely be no), which although answers the question doesn't really promote the discussion that is the basis of the site.
What's the rationale for putting on hold and not simply edit it?
I don't like to waste my time. We could guess at the OP's intent and try to salvage a question out of the mess that was posted. But why should we? The majority of really low-quality questions are fire-and-forgot: the OP is never seen again. Questions that are both poor in content and poorly written are confusing, often duplicates, very often off-topic and almost always add no value to the site.
The unclear close vote is a sign to the OP that he should improve his question or comment with additional details so we can establish:
Only then should we actually proceed to improving the question and voting to re-open. The reason the question closes in the meantime is to prevent answers that aren't answers which end up restricting our ability to redefine the question. This is how the close system is supposed to work!
In the words of Denis de Bernardy:
Please stop being a care bear, and proceed to be harsher at once.
Keep in mind that Stackexchange is not a help forum, it's supposed to be a repository of useful Q&A. Anything that isn't of use to future readers and can't be salvaged should summarily closed and downvoted. Workplace has a huge problem with user being too welcoming or defensive of bad posts. The subject matter has a lot to do with that: in most questions we're discussing people's livelihood after all. But you can be kind and welcoming to new users while still respecting the Q&A framework and without encouraging bad posts. Comment on the question to explain to the OP why his post is a bad fit or unclear but vote to close it at the same time!
As inspired by Denis de Bernardy, this is what you should be doing for poor questions:
A close vote is not a super down vote, but must close votes should be accompanied by a downvote! This allows the system to automatically clean up closed questions.
