To a great extent the answer depends on how much you buy into 'great man' history. Herodotus or Thucydides imply that throughout the fifth century certain, well-regarded/well-connected aristocrats such as Cimon, Pericles, and Alcibiades often did sway debates in the assembly. There were various reasons for this, including the fact that wealthy Athenians could afford the expenditure of time and money necessary to become good orators, that they often extended patronage to fellow citizens, and that they were expected to engage in various forms of spending that were of conspicuous benefit to the state as a whole; the two that immediately jump to mind are sponsorship of plays for the Great Dionysia and taxation to support the army and navy.

It is therefore easy to argue that Alcibiades played an extremely important role in the Peloponnesian War, especially after the Peace of Nicias in 421, since Pericles and Cleon had both died and left Nicias the most prominent Athenian leader, who was considerably less charismatic than either of the former, at least if the speech opposing the Sicilian Expedition which Thucydides puts in his mouth has shred of truth to it. All the examples you've listed are good evidence for Alcibiades' influence, although it is also certainly worth mentioning the importance of his attempts to undermine the peace of 421 by drawing the Argives, natural enemies of Sparta who had thus far stayed out of the Archidamian War but now wanted to expand their influence in the Peloponnese, into alliance with Athens. This soon led to the first battle of Mantinea, which the Spartans nearly lost. Such a defeat, coming just after the surrender at Sphacteria, would have effectively shattered Lacedaemonian influence and power, which relied on an aura of invincibility to a significant degree, for good

Later on, though, Alcibiades' influence over events definitely declines, at least in my opinion. The defeat of the Sicilian Expedition could have been averted regardless of Alcibiades' defection. The Athenians had Syracuse almost completely blockaded by land and sea in the winter of 414 to the point where the Syracusans were considering some form of negotiated surrender; the real turning point, if Thucydides is to be believed, was the arrival of Gylippus and Peloponnesian reinforcements, which restored Syracusan morale and provided badly needed experience from the Corinthians on confronting the Athenian navy effectively. Similarly, at the beginning of the Ionian War to the battle of Cynossema Alcibiades is portrayed as a somewhat spent force in that he doesn't actually have the influence with the Persian satrap Tissaphernes that the Athenians and Peloponnesians both think he has, so that he spends much of his time bluffing to both sides and trying to be recalled from exile to Athens. This does work for a time, but a single loss at the battle of Notium destroys his reputation again. It is worth pointing out that even if Athens had won at Aegospotami using Alcibiades' advice, they would have almost certainly lost the war eventually due to the combination of factors stacked against them: good Spartan leadership under Lysander, increased Spartan resources made available by Persia and, to a lesser extent, the more powerful former allies of Athens such as Chios, and the fact that states within the Delian League were by now revolting in droves.

So yeah, in short, I think he did have a lot of influence on the war, but this definitely lessened over time, which makes him imo quite a tragic figure since he is quite likeable despite his flaws.