It's surely not disputed that he was a tyrant?
en.wikipedia.org
Well that depends on perspective. I'm not sure wikipedia is the best source.
The Russian Revolution was an almost exclusively peaceful occurrence. The "tyrant" Lenin, then legalised all religions, legalised homosexuality, legalised abortion, divorce etc. This decades before the UK did so.
He was then invaded by 14 countries, with military budgets ranging into the billions into todays money. They worked alongside fascists and racists to murder and terrorise communities across Russia.
The Bolsheviks responded, as they had too. People were murdered. At times deserters were shot. War was awful. But Lenin didn't declare the war. Had he not fought, they would have been slaughtered.
Once the war was won, Lenin then liberalized via the NEP. He even argued against overly stringent measures (advocated by Trotsky and others). On his deathbed, he urged the party to not allow Stalin to have power, to devolve control and to enhance/develop democracy.
I digress slightly.
However, the idea he personally killed millions of people is utter nonsense, and not reflected in any historiography. It's also dubious to hold him accountable for deaths, caused by famines as a result of WW1 and the unnecessary civil war.
Under Lenin, real wages rose dramatically. It wasnt a utopia, but some context is needed. He shouldn't be lumped in with Mao and Stalin (who he vocally be vocally criticised) in my view.