Not that I actually searched much, but I never saw an explanation of what the Wikileaks people were thinking with their silly preferences -- unless it really was a mere clerical error (or several clerical errors). Net result of their participation : they seem to have contributed to depriving the Greens of a possible extra seat.

From the article I linked the image that emerges is that Assange's deal maximising faction on the board turned out to be a minority, moved to give Assange full freedom to deal, and when denied went ahead and couped the boards preferences by handing in something the board had not decided.

Why I resigned from the WikiLeaks party | Daniel Mathews | Comment is free | theguardian.com

At length, it was decided for NSW to put the Greens above the Shooters & Fishers and the Christian Right -- with whom deals had been considered and rejected.

WA was the easy case, because we had a pre-existing arrangement with the Greens senator, Scott Ludlam. They would clearly be ahead of the major parties, and Family First and the Christian Right. This was presented as uncontroversial and little argument was made.

Victoria was the most difficult. There was a vote on a resolution, which was complicated and contingent upon another deal, but roughly the question was whether or not to do a deal with Family First and put them in the top 10 preferenced parties, if we didn't get a better offer.

The vote went three yes, three abstain, five no. Shipton and Assange (via John as proxy) voted yes.

That the coup also contained clerical errors is not surprising, coups are often sloppy.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se