This is so incredibly incorrect that I'm not sure where to begin, but I'll try:
First, you somehow believe that a dispatcher, likely working for a private/public firm and without any real ties to law enforcement, is making a legal determination of "reasonable suspicion" prior to dispatching an officer. The is beyond ridiculous, of course a community like WDM is sending out an officer to calls.
Then, you believe that it just requires a "reasonable level" of "suspicion," which is false, even though its been posted to educate you in this thread numerous times. It is first, suspicion of criminal activity. Not just suspicion of something that is then reasonable. It is then suspicion that is readily articulable, meaning they can state the basis for it, as opposed to "something feels off, or I don't think...." and then it is reasonable within the context of those two findings.
He does NOT have "every right" to temporarily detain, if "whether or not there was reasonable suspicion is certainly debatable." Your own post admits the finding of "reasonable suspicion" is debatable. If it is debatable, the officer would not have the SCOTUS-affirmed right you claim they do. The officer may investigate further, of course, and may approach the person, but not detain until he actually has that articulable, reasonable suspicion of criminal activity having occurred or continuing to occur.
You simply keep repeating it to somehow convince yourself and others that it is true. This whole thread is debating whether there was, or was not, sufficient level of suspicion to detain. Unless you have facts you want to present to support there being such, stop posting the same ignorant claim.