I'm geometry, one way to prove something is to assume its opposite and then show that it leads to a contradiction. Here, assume an omnipotent being, you quickly run into this contradiction, ergo there is another such thing as an omnipotent being. Theodicy is another such contradiction. I am reminded of Ptolemy's super complex spheres and epicycles to explain the movement of planets. Very very complex and it doesn't entirely work. Copernicus frames the issue as a heliocentric system and all the contortions disappear, because it is a better model.

So, no, because omnipotent beings don't exist

I think this question is more confusing than it is helpful, because the answer depends entirely on how the answering person defines "omnipotence." If "omnipotence" includes the power to create logically invalid situations (e.g., a 4-sided triangle) then yes. If not, the no.

Thus, the question is really just asking others to define "omnipotence."

This makes the question frivolous, because asking someone to define a word with no particular purpose in mind is asking that person to make an arbitrary choice; just take your pick on which definition of "omnipotence" you prefer. There's nothing accomplished by preferring one over the other. The idea that either definition could be "right" or "wrong" is illusory.

You could even resolve any false feelings of conflict by adding new words or phrases to which the competing definitions can be ascribed, like "soft omnipotence" (all-powerful, except bound by logical validity) and "hard omnipotence" (all powerful, can somehow make logically invalid things become valid).

By breaking down "omnipotence" into two concepts, I can illustrate how this question is trivial:
A being with "soft omnipotence" by definition cannot make such a boulder.
A being with "hard omnipotence" by definition can make one.

The ridiculous, when applied to God, is still ridiculous.

how 'bout a bust of orathaic's or Ogion's head. they are so big and full of themselves there is no way to lift those

Mohawks not mullets! Return Oklahoma to the Osage Indians!

* mandatory disclosure, i am of Osage Indian heritage.

Sovereign Glue vs Ultimate Solution

Taking the analogy of god as a programmer, you can entirely create a simulation, and within it, create an object with the liftable property set to false. But is there a way to prevent that programmer from changing it back to true at any future point?

Ghost in the Machine. Free will programing to allow the construct to program.