It does, but the question is whether the US would extradite one of its citizens for crimes they'd allegedly committed _while in the US_.

I don't see anything on that Wikipedia page that says it would.

The more usual case for extradition is for returning fugitives who have left the country where they allegedly committed the crime.

Sorry, I misunderstood.

> The treaty has been claimed to be one-sided[3] because it allows the US to demand extradition of British citizens and other nationals for offences committed against US law, even though the alleged offence may have been committed in the UK by a person living and working in the UK (see for example the NatWest Three), and there being no reciprocal right; and issues about the level of proof required to extradite from the UK to the US versus from the US to the UK.[4]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK–US_extradition_treaty_of_...

> You are wrong

What do you mean "wrong"? They expressed an opinion, not a fact.

That you shouldn't be able to be extradited to a country you have nothing to do with, is something I agree with as well, but I wouldn't say it's "true". What is true today is that many countries have treaties to allow them to basically kidnap citizens of other countries. If you think that's good/bad, you should argue for one of those viewpoints, not necessarily if it's true/false.