Mishandling of a duplicate.

Hi, I’m not sure if this is where I should post this, but there is a case of mishandling a duplicate.
 
So, image 1804182 was posted recently and it is just an upscale of an image 1777086. There is no increase in detail, it was simply resized to be bigger resolution. I reported this, but to no result. I actually can’t even see my report now. But the point is that image 1777086 was replaced by 1804182 which is just an upscale, which is pointless.
 
To be even more specific on a situation (just cause I want to talk about it in excruciating details) - both of those images are taken from twitter. They come from links https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DZYwFy2U8AAtydS.jpg and https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DZYwFy2U8AAtydS.jpg:large. Twitter has that thing where you can add :large to the end of an image link and it will give you a higher resolution version, but in most cases it would be just an upscale of a regular version, without any extra details or better quality, it will even have jpeg artifacts or a regular image simply stretched, instead of being a proper “more resolution = more details” situation. And with this image it is definitely the case. :large version is just a sctreched out version of https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DZYwFy2U8AAtydS.jpg. So I think it’s pointless to have an upscaled version with pixelation, instead of a regular sized version. I know it’s a matter of a hundred kilobytes or even less (so, clearly, life or death of a server kind of deal), but I’m just pointing it out.

Actually, I believe the merge was done correctly.  
In additional to :large, Twitter also provides an :orig version that is supposed to match the exact dimension of uploaded image. This is the version Derpibooru’s scraper uses when fetching images. If the sketch was upscaled, it was done by the author before uploading to Twitter.
 
I made this album for comparison: The first image is the smaller version you provided. The second image is the first upscaled to match the dimensions of the third, :orig version. If you compare the two, you will notice that the upscaled version is blurrier than the :orig, which is especially evident around the watermark.

Well, I’m looking into it more and it looks like a very weird situation.
 
First, I must address the bluriness of your upscale - it comes from an upscale algorithm. Most of them use some kind of filtering, like bilinear or bicubic, and that what adds the bluriness. So here’s a custom upscale I did to show that it is indeed just an upscale. _{(I upscaled my small 1200p image without any filters to double the size (because if you upscale without a filter to anything other then x2, x4, x8 and so on, it will look very weird, that’s why pretty much everything has a filter built in), and then downscaled to 2046p of :large/:orig image size with a bicubic filter, and then thrown a bit of sharpening (cause I’m sure whatever app was doing an upscale also added some sharpening) and viala)}. As you can see, they are extremely similar, in fact I almost wanted to not title them and ask you to guess which one is my upscale. The pixelation on both of them is 1 to 1 match, which makes me still think that it is just an upscale.
 
But, here’s the reason why I started by saying that it’s a weird situation, because it was indeed uploaded in this pixelated upscaled state, because the watermark seems to have a proper amount of details for it’s resolution in :orig/:large versions (and I checked - :orig and :large versions are identical, down to bit size). Also it feels like “small” version was reincoded, because it has a little bit more artifacts than :orig/:large version, which is more evidence that it wasn’t uploaded in a “small” resolution. So my guess is that there’s some app that adds watermarks that decided to upscale it and slapped a watermark on an upscale.
 
So, in conclustion, yes, :large/:orig version is a slightly better one, because it has a little bit less artifacts, so it was not a mishandling, but you can see how I would get confused here. Also it’s an unfortunate turn of events to have an image that was somehow uploaded to twitter as an upscale of itself.