Scheduler hint message sounds odd and makes confusion for failed scheduling with WriteWriteOncePod PVC, it mentions: "2 node has pod using PersistentVolumeClaim with the same name and ReadWriteOncePod access mode".
============
 Warning FailedScheduling <invalid> default-scheduler 0/7 nodes are available: 2 node has pod using PersistentVolumeClaim with the same name and ReadWriteOncePod access mode, 2 node(s) had untolerated taint {os: Windows}, 3 node(s) had untolerated taint {node-role.kubernetes.io/master: }. preemption: 0/7 nodes are available: 2 No preemption victims found for incoming pod, 5 Preemption is not helpful for scheduling. 
============
I think the warning wants to say: there are two schedulable nodes but there is one pod used the same PVC with RWOP already. Here the scheduling fails because the pod only, the pod might be running in one of these 2 nodes, or even not in these 2 nodes, but the message makes confusion.

4.14.0

Always

1. Create a pvc with accessMode: WriteWriteOncePod
2. Create deployment and the deployment consumes the pvc
3. Scale the deployment to --replicas=2
4. New pod is pending as expected, check the info with "oc describe pod" 

$ more 01_deployment_pvc_rwop.yaml
---
apiVersion: apps/v1
kind: Deployment
metadata:
  name: 01-mydeploy-rwop
spec:
  replicas: 1
  selector:
    matchLabels:
      app: hello-openshift
  template:
    metadata:
      labels:
        app: hello-openshift
    spec:
      containers:
      - name: hello-openshift
        image: quay.io/openshifttest/storage@sha256:a05b96d373be86f46e76817487027a7f5b8b5f87c0ac18a246b018df11529b40
        volumeMounts:
        - name: local
          mountPath: /mnt/local
      volumes:
      - name: local
        persistentVolumeClaim:
          claimName: 01-mypvc-rwop---
apiVersion: v1
kind: PersistentVolumeClaim
metadata:
  name: 01-mypvc-rwop
spec:
  accessModes:
  - ReadWriteOncePod
  resources:
    requests:
      storage: 10Gi

  Warning  FailedScheduling  <invalid>                      default-scheduler  0/7 nodes are available: 2 node has pod using PersistentVolumeClaim with the same name and ReadWriteOncePod access mode, 2 node(s) had untolerated taint {os: Windows}, 3 node(s) had untolerated taint {node-role.kubernetes.io/master: }. preemption: 0/7 nodes are available: 2 No preemption victims found for incoming pod, 5 Preemption is not helpful for scheduling.

1. Only mentioning that pod using PersistentVolumeClaim with the same name and ReadWriteOncePod access mode, this is the primary reason。 

2. Or maybe we could use(?): 2 node(s) are shceduleable but the is one pod using PersistentVolumeClaim with the same name and ReadWriteOncePod access mode already.

Anyway, current message sounds odd and makes confusion.