Hi 4examp,
I have already discussed your methodology on your "challenges" # 1 & 2, I would just make one additional (and very general) remark here.
Leaving aside the underlying issue of Trinitarian apologetics (and the related question whether or how far the orthodox understanding of hupostasis or persona corresponds to what you understand a "person" to be), it seems to me that your survey of "personal" and "impersonal" traits ascribed to the Holy Spirit is bound to reach one very simple conclusion: both can be found in the texts.
Starting from this observation, asking your readers to decide whether the Holy Spirit is actually "somebody" or "something," a "who" or a "what," requires them to take one part of the "evidence" at face value and explain the rest away as a mere figure of speech. What you blame the WT for doing, i.e. dismissing "personal" traits as literary personification, you expect them to do in the opposite sense: dismiss "impersonal" traits as literary reification.
The contradictory answers you get from the texts (and frequently from the same texts) might as well be an indication that you are asking them the wrong question, and that your basic dichotomy ("personal" vs. "impersonal"), intuitive as it may be, is artificial, anachronistic and foreign to them.
This observation, along with another (the fact that the Spirit is sometimes identified to "God" and/or "Jesus" and sometimes distinguished from both), could also point you to a different direction, namely that the early Christian concept(s) of the deity includes a "personal" and an "impersonal," or "transpersonal" dimension. Iow, that "God" is not anymore exclusively conceivable as "somebody" than it is as "something". And that the relative "impersonality" of the Spirit is actually counter-balancing the unilaterally "personal" representations of "God" as "Father" and "Son".
It is noteworthy that many classical explanations of the Trinity, although confessing the Holy Spirit as a hupostasis or persona, keep on resorting to impersonal or abstract metaphors for the "third person". E.g. the lover, the beloved and love in Augustine; or the knower, the known and knowledge in Thomas Aquinas. This is still the case in many modern theologies. I was thinking of Raymon Panikkar's work on reconciling the personal and impersonal dimensions of the deity in dialogue with Hinduism and found the following (partially) online book which looks interesting: