Source: http://orcuttchristian.org/Wallace_Greek%20Grammar%20and%20the%20Personality%20of%20the%20Holy%20Spirit.pdf
I assume this is a portion of one of his books considering the page numbers & all in all its quite good food-for-thought for both sides of the theological argument. His honesty here is surprising considering he once cited Countess' very flawed argument. A very good article to read anyhow and unironically quite useful in teaching how Greek antecedents work - something very important on occasion.
not to "spoil" the article but here are some very "un- Wallace" thoughts, considering his stance on the trinity:
In John 16:8, the only explicit antecedent to e)kei=noj is o( para/klhtojin v. 7. The
personal pronoun au)to/n in v. 7 also refers back to para/klhtoj. As Curt Steven Mayes
(Pronominal Referents and the Personality of the Holy Spirit [Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1980], 33) notes on this passage, "The fact that John often uses
e)kei=noj as the equivalent of a personal pronoun (= he or they) may be significant for
the Spirit's personality. But the question is, how is the masculine form in this passage
to be explained? Is it meant to teach theology or agree with para/klhtoj? Surely the latter is a grammatically sound conclusion." Mayes's observation leads to a further interesting point: in 1 John, as R. Brown and others have repeatedly noted, the author
consistently uses the pronoun e)kei=noj, to refer to Jesus (as opposed to God the Father).
Now there are significant shifts (albeit subtle ones) in the terminology between the
Gospel of John and 1 John, but I wonder if the common thread here is the concept of
the ascended Christ as Spirit. If this were the case (and I admit it's an if), the author
would tend toward the masculine, not because of a view of the Spirit's personality, but
because of a view that the Spirit was identified somehow with the ascended, exalted
Christ (who would naturally be thought of as masculine).
(page 100 - Footnote: 10)
"The first two passages, John 14:26 and 15:26, can be handled together. In both of them, pneu=ma is appositional to a masculine noun,
rather than the subject of the verb. The gender of e)kei=noj thus has
nothing to do with the natural gender of pneu=ma. The antecedent of
e)kei=noj, in each case, is para/klhtoj, not pneu=ma."
(page: 104 - Last paragraph)
"the masculine demonstrative pronoun, e)kei=noj, stands in relation to o( para/klhtoj, not to to_ pneu=ma. In 14:26, the noun clause—"the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in
my name"—is in apposition to o( para/klhtoj. How do we know that to_
pneu=ma is the appositive rather than o( para/klhtoj? Because it follows
o( para/klhtoj. (25)"
(page 107 - see also footnote 25 & 26)