Hey ​@osama,

I might be wrong here, as I pretty much never use User field type. However, what I believe might be occurring is the following.

Active users: User A, User B, User C.
You can obviously select any of them for your records. The above users are selected throughout multiple records on the base.
User B becomes inactive.
Now, when you try to assign a user to a record on the User field, you can only select User A or User B (active users.
However, any reference to User B will still exist on your database wherever User B was selected. Airtable does this to make sure you do not loose such historic data.

I believe the screenshot you are showing corresponds to a FILTER on the interface -not to the User field selection itself. In that way, for filtering adequately, Airtable will show all users who actually have any record assigned to them -even if they are no longer active users.

My suggestion: Rather than working with User field directly, create a Users table and have all of the info for such user. E.g. First Name, Last Name, Email, User, etc. You can also include a Status field (active or inactive). You will now want to use the linked record field rather than the User field type on your original table. Not sure this would change anything of what you described, but it is just a best practice I try to follow as it will allow you to get more data analytics, more robust automations, etc. 

Hope the above helps!!!

Feel free to grab a slot using this link if you’d like to go through it together on a quick call.

Mike, Consultant @ Automatic Nation

Hm if you look at the filters on your data view that’s going to show up too

As far as I can tell, there’s no way to remove these shadow users when filtering on the User field; they persist even when you create a brand new User field at this point as well

The only workaround I’m aware of is to create a whole new table where each record represents a user and use a linked field to that instead of the User field I’m afraid