(sorry for the wall of text)

I struggle to understand why "soft delete" is a thing if there's no way to sift thru the trashcan to find something you wind up needing, especially since the prompt to confirm a deletion just warns about assigned tickets and personal macros (and mentions nothing about reporting or KB articles). We have user accounts deleted as far back as two years ago still sitting there that we can't do anything with.

As for suspending users, the "Suspend access" language implies it just prevents that person from logging in, but for many organizations (like ours) who utilize SSO, once their AD account is turned down, it inherently breaks authentication.

Since the warning is so light, nothing about it being irreversible (despite the word "delete"), and suspended users still show up alongside every other user just about everywhere, suspending users just adds to user bloat and just adds value to deleting them instead. You shouldn't downgrade a user from Staff to End User either, as that has it's own chaos.

What I feel should be applied to deleting a user:

Add everything to the warning of what will happen and what will break
In that warning, offer to suspend instead
Move suspended users into their own separate list
Hide them from any Role, Organization, or other active list that shows users to cut down on that bloat

Or turn "soft delete" into suspending a user, and "permanent delete" become a multi-step process with varying levels of confirming that will actually delete someone.