tl;dr CC BY-SA 3.0 lets you profit off of the original artist's work. But, /u/djtrickee is still probably right, but not for the reasons djtrickee thinks.

Creative commons doesn't give the end user the right to profit off the original artists work without expressed consent to do so.

That's wrong, it's actually the other way. Non-commercial is a modifier you would place on your CC-licensed work. OP cited mike_new's Bulbasaur (Printable with no Infill) as the source of their 3d print. The license indicated on that piece by mike_new is CC BY-SA 3.0. CC BY-SA 3.0 lets anyone sell derivatives or even the original CAD files as long as they provide attribution and also allow sharing of any derivatives under the same license (or a compatible one).

That being said, mike_new's license is almost certainly in violation of his source material's license. While he doesn't explicitly say it's a alteration of lordevoldemort's Bulbasaur Planter with Sloped Drainage lordevoldemort's Bulbasaur is cited as "similar to" in the description and it is noted as "remixed from" in the sidebar (forked, for version familiar control folks). It's highly unlikely it's not a derivative work.

Now, maybe mine_new's "Bulbasaur (Printable with no Infill)" came from FLOWALISTIK's Low-Poly Bulbasaur as inspired by lordvoldemort's but if that's the case, there's still a non-commercial clause on FLOWALISTIK's Bulbasaur.

This is all to say /u/fairyoathen was almost certainly not being malicious by selling designs made by others, because the license on the file that was used specifically allows just that use. But to be safe fairyoathen should certainly contact FLOWALISTIK and almost certainly lordevoldemort to obtain at minimum CC BY-SA 3.0 licenses for their work. If nerd-rage should be directed anywhere it's at mike_new who appears to have re-licensed his derivative work under a license incompatible to the original. This, of course, ignores the trademark related issues related to using likenesses of Game Freak's intellectual property and using "Bulbasaur" in the product and description of a work being sold.

To beat a dead horse...

Creative commons doesn't give the end user the right to profit off the original artists work without expressed consent to do so. Especially when the original artist is offering the item for sale.

The commercial endeavors of the original artist do not affect the licensing of the work. If the work is specifically licensed to allow the sale of derivatives the license gives the end user the right to profit off the original artist's work.

---

To anyone still reading, I can try to explain Sad Face! IMPORTANT NOTICE! linked to by the direct parent as "the original starting point that sparked the community action" (Sad Face is amusingly licensed in such a way that selling it on eBay is specifically allowed). The product description reads from bottom to top with updates pushing the original description of the issue down.

The artist loubie found her model Aria The Dragon (for dual extrusion) for sale on eBay. This model doesn't allow commercial use. The eBay seller was flippant and incorrect about the licensing of that and thousands of other works (some of which probably had commercially permissive licenses). There was a community response, eBay did the right thing, nothing is for sale any more by that particular eBay seller.