Do you ever revise your upvotes for a particular sub-thread/conversant when you get the sense they are either bad-faith or do not have sufficient knowledge to justify their participation or comments?

If later text shows that my initial reading was incorrect due to missing context or because I misread their starting point, yeah. For example, if something starts off sounding positive but context shows it is actually a dogwhistle I had not come across before I will go back and correct my votes. It rarely takes even a minute to fix a dozen or so in a chain.

It isn't so much that I think my individual votes matter, but because I don't like knowing I gave a positive interactions with that thing.

Same thing if I read something as a negative and find out I was wrong, gonna flip those to upvotes!

If context is really needed to identify something as a dogwhistle, isn't it already an ineffective utility? I'm not doubting you at all--I know next to nothing about any honest dogwhistles, but I'm always curious to know how people avoid the feeling that of paranoia in these instances--how can you be positive you aren't just yielding to a fear of some sort?
- Dogwhistles are for the in group to show solidarity. Those outside not recognizing the dogwhistle or having a hard time proving it is a dogwhistle is the entire purpose.

Sometimes. I might get halfway through the comments and see that someone has shared something from their post history that paints them in a different light.

- I upvoted this assuming the edit was humor, don't you dare prove me wrong!

My up/down votes gets as much attention as their importance warrants. None at all.

brb I'm just going to take a few minutes to go through my records and see if any of my recent upvotes need revising in light of your latest comment.

Rarely.

Most likely reason is to upvote a contrarian reply to my own comment that I was too salty about to upvote in the moment.

I already have a pretty good sense of bad faith arguments, having been online for far too long.

Idk, it feels a lot of conversation about difficult to grasp topics are followed by a lot of Dunning-Kruger comments, even here on lemmy. Sometimes it's about related topics that a person know, so their comments seems reasonable, but after a search or a harder look, I stop upvoting or I can even downvote their comment, but sometimes I just ignore if I don't even remember the original conversation.

Who cares that much

I guess both of us

I don't often change upvotes. Sometimes I will go back and upvote things after I better understood the poster's point.

Downvotes tho ... I review my downvotes at lemvotes.org. I haven't changed many, but I do reconsider them.

If I think the content is a net positive for Lemmy you get a upvote, even if I disagree, even if I don't like you.

So that means even if someone later reveals themselves to be an asshat, they are still adding to Lemmy's ecosystem and get to keep their upvotes.

Update: but I'm not a saint, if someone is downvoting me I'll downvote them right back

No because when I upvote someone it usually means I agree with their point. Disagreeing later doesn't change the initial agreement.

Even if it was manipulative or disingenuous?
- If I agree with their point, again, I don't care if I later find reasons or points to disagree on something different. It will not make me waste my time adjusting upvotes. Common ground is very important.