I assume you use "weak omnipotence" for the fourth definition on the Wikipedia article, namely that a weakly omnipotent entity is one that can do anything that is logically possible. In that case I agree that it is not inconsistent that a weakly omnipotent entity can create another weakly omnipotent entity. But one must be careful; the definition of "weak omnipotence" must be based on global possibility. Having two weakly omnipotent entities is then possible because they are simultaneously constrained to be unable to together do something impossible, simply by definition. Thus one weakly omnipotent entity can make it so that there are two weakly omnipotent entities, again by definition.
That said, it is philosophically unsatisfying to have such a notion of weak omnipotence, when one also wishes to ascribe a conscious volition to a weakly omnipotent entity. How
on earth can one such entity create another that has an independent conscious volition but yet with both constrained not to conflict? In other words, the issue lies not with weak omnipotence but in that we cannot have two entities that are both weakly omnipotent and have independent volition, unless you also affirm that the whole world (including all whatever omnipotent entities) is totally logically determined (so that there is only a single logical possibility). This does not imply that there cannot be one weakly omnipotent entity with volition in a world that is not totally logically determined, so it may be compatible with certain belief systems ascribing weak omnipotence to their respective God[s]. For example, it is not inconsistent to have two or more weakly omnipotent entities with a unique volition, though arguably that is essentially having a single being in the traditional sense, since they logically necessarily act as one.