True, it can be and frequently is redundant, but I think it's dangerous to
mark it as redundant and actually remove the "base." qualifier.
I just experienced the negative effects of this in my own code. Such a
qualifier may be redundant at some point in time, but as code is changed and
modified and developed over time, it may become necessary. This was the
case for me, where I removed the "base." qualifier thanks to Reshaper's
quick-fix and warning flag, only to suddenly end up in an infinite loop a
few days later when the code changes and the signature changed. Because
there was no warning that the qualifier was now suddenly required, I think
it's a poor and potentially dangerous choice to ever indicate that the
qualifier isn't required.
Please consider removing this from your analysis. It seems dangerous and
just not a good idea. Besides, having it there has value to humans reading