TL;DR: for Reasons detailed below:
"Conflict resolution" is a mechanical concept, but we don't need a tag for it
"Conflict resolution" is a bit of RPG terminology and was originally created for that purpose. If we go by its original creation's meaning and use, the recent taggings on group-conflict questions are mistaggings.
In general, when a tag could be read with two meanings, one a general term and one a piece of RPG terminology, I would favour the RPG terminology meaning over the general one. So in this case, I'd say conflict-resolution is about the mechanical design concept, not about resolving conflicts between group members.
I'm not sure we need it at all though, as it's unusually specific even where it's used "right". The Shock question is just a rules clarification and derives no search, SEO, or meaning benefit from the tag; the Mouse Gaurd example is just a rules clarification around combat, and doesn't need the tag either. With both games it's redundant with the system tag, as the game systems are entirely built on conflict-resolution. I'm unfamiliar with GUMSHOE, but I expect that's similar. The only kind of question I can see it being valuable on is a design question, but then it offers very little value and should probably just be part of the question, not the tags.
So, if we don't need the tag at all for the mechanical concept, perhaps the tag is free for using to mean resolving conflicts around the table.
There are better names than "conflict resolution" for this use
Our existing discussion about merging problem-players and problem-gm achieved consensus for merging them, but we never came up with a good term. The conflict-resolution tag looks attractive, but even better would be something more clear, like maybe group-conflict.
Besides, tags should describe the problem, not the desired solution — some group conflicts should not be resolved (q.v. our many "just leave" answers to such questions). "Conflict resolution" isn't the problem, it's a guess at what the solution might be. At tag that is only ever valid on an XY Problem isn't a tag we should have. So again, something describing the problem, like group-conflict, is better.
Then, though, it begs the question of what social and group-dynamics mean and how they should be used. Perhaps we just have too many ambiguous "stuff happening around the table" tags. I favour specific over general tags though, so I'd say that the existence of social and group-dynamics shouldn't stop us from using a nicely-named tag, that just falls into our lap like this, to finally merge problem-players and problem-gm.
So I suggest group-conflict be made our merged tag, and synonym the otherwise-useless conflict-resolution to it after removing it from the questions about the mechanical concept of conflict resolution.