I would choose the last one. Yes, he made serious mistakes, but they were not meant, in the sense of being intentional, like Stalin, or the Communists in general, or some of Russia's pre Romanov rulers. He did end up making mistakes, and a leadership role wasn't the best thing for him. He stuck to doctrines such as Fatalism, which made him accept bad things, almost as if willing them, and not try to change, them or even think change is possible-which is fine in personal life, but when you are ruling an empire, it isn't so much. And also the autocracy, that everything that the autocrat did was right, and that letting any power go to others was wrong, the autocracy was God's will. And also naive notions of the Russian peasantry supporting their father Tsar, ignoring the realities of their lives. Everything the autocrat did, was God's will, and could never be wrong, when obviously, that wasn't true. Nicholas believed all these things, and let them dominate the goverment, and also let his wife govern later according to these ideals.
But he did not realize these things were intentionally harmful, that change and reforms were the future, and that constituinal monarchy was as well. He believed he was doing his best, and the best for Russia. He did not intentionally let innocents die, for political crimes they did not commit, nor for no reason, like Stalin and the Communists, intentionally. These things may have happened, but they were not his ideas. He did not realize the course he followed may not have been the best, and he most likely thought it was the correct one. His was merely weak, not harmful leadership.